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

Premier Sponsor:

 


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 1:19 PM
Post #1 of 147 (2031 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

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

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 1:22 PM
Post #2 of 147 (2018 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
 

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

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

We also have Epoch, just to show we're not elitists.


meatbomz


Feb 8, 2011, 1:33 PM
Post #3 of 147 (1980 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

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

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

I think k.l.k. is one of Jack's cronies who comes in from time to time and yanks our chain. IIRC he also knows alot about music and camhead sucks his cock when he talks about the history of the mandolin in the music of the mississipi delta and shit like that.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 1:58 PM
Post #4 of 147 (1961 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

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

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

Don't you think this is just a little... selfish? Exactly the sort of content that would otherwise attract people to the site and encourage them to post their own stories. The stuff that actually builds a community - and, incidentally, brings in the traffic to pay for the site that you're making free use of - and you hide it away in a thread that is deliberately made as uninviting and closed to outsiders as you can possibly make it.

That there's more climbing content and community in the BET thread than elsewhere on the site is not something for the BET crew to be proud of - IMHO it's something they should be ashamed of.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 2:16 PM
Post #5 of 147 (1949 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
That there's more climbing content and community in the BET thread than elsewhere on the site is not something for the BET crew to be proud of - IMHO it's something they should be ashamed of.

He was just responding to lamentations that we don't climb and there's nothing but nonsense in the BET. We discuss climbing in a constant jumbled stream of climbing, nonsense, PTFTW, gardens, swinger's lifestyles, and pictures of cats covered in misspelled words. It works just fine for us. You can't fault us because we don't feel like typing up trip reports.


(This post was edited by Arrogant_Bastard on Feb 8, 2011, 2:16 PM)


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 2:17 PM
Post #6 of 147 (1946 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Post deleted by Arrogant_Bastard [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 2:17 PM
Post #7 of 147 (2101 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30358

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
 

blondgecko wrote:

That there's more climbing content and community in the BET thread than elsewhere on the site is not something for the BET crew to be proud of - IMHO it's something they should be ashamed of.

That's pretty funny. The truth is, all the climbing chatter is mixed in with the rest of the stuff. WHat's the alternative? Post a bunch of trip reports? I did that for a while, it's kind of fun, but at the end of the day it's mostly just spray. I'd rather just spray my buddies down and talk a little smack.

The BET is really just a chat room, and I prefer that format over the split forums. The model for those forums seems to be to ask a question and get a million responses, and then a couple guys wank about who is right and who is rong. Who cares? sez I.

And the whole point of the BET being semi- exclusive is so that it doesn't become like the rest of the site-- a million voices drowning each other out with idiocy. I prefer the idiocy of those I know. We don't need poster ratings, or star ratings or a search function, because you basically know the other posters, so there isn't the same choss to sift through.

The BET was born kind of because the rest of the site was going to shit in that there was just so much bad information being posted so often, that it became comical! It still is. You can log onto this site and read some insane stuff. If you have a certain sense of humor, it will make you laff. So you joke about it a bit with your friends.

That brand of humor ain't for everyone, and that's fine. There is a largely serious, humorless site out there called mountainproject, which is a great site and I use it quite a bit. This site is difficult to take seriously, because there is just so much stupid shit that gets posted.

Also... I think that often posters have a life cycle on sites. I don't think this site is very informative any more, because I've read probably 97% of any possible topics already. It is all going to be repetition at this point. If it wasn't for the big fun in the BET, I'd be long gone, because there's just not much for me ont he rest of the site, because it's geared to beginner Q&A questions, or the rare disagreement about belaying. Maybe that's why cracklover's friends bailed, because there was no new meaningful content. 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.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 2:24 PM
Post #14 of 147 (2079 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

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

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

Don't you think this is just a little... selfish? Exactly the sort of content that would otherwise attract people to the site and encourage them to post their own stories. The stuff that actually builds a community - and, incidentally, brings in the traffic to pay for the site that you're making free use of - and you hide it away in a thread that is deliberately made as uninviting and closed to outsiders as you can possibly make it.

That there's more climbing content and community in the BET thread than elsewhere on the site is not something for the BET crew to be proud of - IMHO it's something they should be ashamed of.

Perhaps, but it is not jumbled with "what shoe should I get", "I climbed 5.11c my first day how Rad am I??" "Stealth Rubber is so much better than Sportiva!" etc.

Think of it as a highly self moderated forum. The other forums could be moderated this way with post removals but it would be labor intensive for the mods. For one thread it is easy enough to do.

rap bolting this one and see that i've been GU'd a bit.. but editing is weker than rap bolting so... here we go.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 2:31 PM
Post #18 of 147 (2057 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
blondgecko wrote:

That there's more climbing content and community in the BET thread than elsewhere on the site is not something for the BET crew to be proud of - IMHO it's something they should be ashamed of.

That's pretty funny. The truth is, all the climbing chatter is mixed in with the rest of the stuff. WHat's the alternative? Post a bunch of trip reports? I did that for a while, it's kind of fun, but at the end of the day it's mostly just spray. I'd rather just spray my buddies down and talk a little smack.

The BET is really just a chat room, and I prefer that format over the split forums. The model for those forums seems to be to ask a question and get a million responses, and then a couple guys wank about who is right and who is rong. Who cares? sez I.

And the whole point of the BET being semi- exclusive is so that it doesn't become like the rest of the site-- a million voices drowning each other out with idiocy. I prefer the idiocy of those I know. We don't need poster ratings, or star ratings or a search function, because you basically know the other posters, so there isn't the same choss to sift through.

The BET was born kind of because the rest of the site was going to shit in that there was just so much bad information being posted so often, that it became comical! It still is. You can log onto this site and read some insane stuff. If you have a certain sense of humor, it will make you laff. So you joke about it a bit with your friends.

That brand of humor ain't for everyone, and that's fine. There is a largely serious, humorless site out there called mountainproject, which is a great site and I use it quite a bit. This site is difficult to take seriously, because there is just so much stupid shit that gets posted.

Also... I think that often posters have a life cycle on sites. I don't think this site is very informative any more, because I've read probably 97% of any possible topics already. It is all going to be repetition at this point. If it wasn't for the big fun in the BET, I'd be long gone, because there's just not much for me ont he rest of the site, because it's geared to beginner Q&A questions, or the rare disagreement about belaying. Maybe that's why cracklover's friends bailed, because there was no new meaningful content. 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.

+1 I've been here for coming up on 8 years. I had read just about all the shoe, gear, belaying, bolts, trad vs sport, threads there is in about a year. I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle. That has since mostly died out due to many of the members moving away so I found other locals in the BET.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 4:11 PM
Post #22 of 147 (1992 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
blondgecko wrote:

That there's more climbing content and community in the BET thread than elsewhere on the site is not something for the BET crew to be proud of - IMHO it's something they should be ashamed of.

That's pretty funny. The truth is, all the climbing chatter is mixed in with the rest of the stuff. WHat's the alternative? Post a bunch of trip reports? I did that for a while, it's kind of fun, but at the end of the day it's mostly just spray. I'd rather just spray my buddies down and talk a little smack.

The BET is really just a chat room, and I prefer that format over the split forums. The model for those forums seems to be to ask a question and get a million responses, and then a couple guys wank about who is right and who is rong. Who cares? sez I.

And the whole point of the BET being semi- exclusive is so that it doesn't become like the rest of the site-- a million voices drowning each other out with idiocy. I prefer the idiocy of those I know. We don't need poster ratings, or star ratings or a search function, because you basically know the other posters, so there isn't the same choss to sift through.

The BET was born kind of because the rest of the site was going to shit in that there was just so much bad information being posted so often, that it became comical! It still is. You can log onto this site and read some insane stuff. If you have a certain sense of humor, it will make you laff. So you joke about it a bit with your friends.

That brand of humor ain't for everyone, and that's fine. There is a largely serious, humorless site out there called mountainproject, which is a great site and I use it quite a bit. This site is difficult to take seriously, because there is just so much stupid shit that gets posted.

Also... I think that often posters have a life cycle on sites. I don't think this site is very informative any more, because I've read probably 97% of any possible topics already. It is all going to be repetition at this point. If it wasn't for the big fun in the BET, I'd be long gone, because there's just not much for me ont he rest of the site, because it's geared to beginner Q&A questions, or the rare disagreement about belaying. Maybe that's why cracklover's friends bailed, because there was no new meaningful content. 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.

+1 I've been here for coming up on 8 years. I had read just about all the shoe, gear, belaying, bolts, trad vs sport, threads there is in about a year. I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle. That has since mostly died out due to many of the members moving away so I found other locals in the BET.

This is all well and good, but what of the other side of the social contract. You're using, for free, a resource that costs money and time to run. If it doesn't bring in enough revenue to pay server fees plus a bit of profit for the owners, it just... goes away.

Now, there are only four real revenue models available to a site like this. First is paid membership. Second is voluntary donation. Third is merchandising. Fourth is advertising. The first three are a bit of a catch-22: in order for them to be profitable, there already has to be a strong community in place. And let's face it, the total pool of people to be interested in a rockclimbing community is really pretty small compared to, say, gaming or lolcats. Advertising has the advantage that it requires no monetary contribution from the regulars who (should) form the backbone of the community.

But that's not to say it requires no contribution of any kind. Thing is, advertisers are not interested in users like you or me - site regulars who come back every day, and have long since learned to tune out the ads. We're of no value to them. What they're interested in is unique hits - new people coming in, new to the topic, and more likely to be in need of new gear and hence click on ads.

And what brings the new users in? New, interesting content. And who's the best at providing new, interesting (to n00bs) content? The established users.

There is no doubt that the BET threads represent a net monetary drain on the forum that supports them. Now, I'm not saying you have to do much - but would it be too much to ask that, just occasionally, you start a new thread about something climbing-related? Even if it's something you no longer find particularly interesting, there are plenty of others who will.

Basically, as long as there's something on this site that's important enough to you to keep you coming back, you're neglecting your side of the bargain if you don't contribute to the wider community that ultimately supports it. That's all I'm saying.




P.S. I know some of you do contribute outside the BET threads with some reasonable regularity. I'm not pointing at you. But there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.


drivel


Feb 8, 2011, 4:21 PM
Post #23 of 147 (1986 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 4:30 PM
Post #24 of 147 (1978 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
And what brings the new users in? New, interesting content. And who's the best at providing new, interesting (to n00bs) content? The established users.

Bullshit.

New, interesting content only interests a small minority of veteran websurfers. It's the same faces that have been here since the usernet days, with a few 'newbies' added in since. Take a look at the quantity of threads about shoes, ropes, which knot to tie ropes together, and I've been climbing X months, I just climbed 5.YYy in my gym, how long till I can climb 5.ZZzzzzz... Same damn questions over and over. People are too lazy to use the search box in the upper right, they're far too lazy to read a couple pages of educational discourse.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 4:45 PM
Post #25 of 147 (1967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     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)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
And what brings the new users in? New, interesting content. And who's the best at providing new, interesting (to n00bs) content? The established users.

Bullshit.

New, interesting content only interests a small minority of veteran websurfers. It's the same faces that have been here since the usernet days, with a few 'newbies' added in since. Take a look at the quantity of threads about shoes, ropes, which knot to tie ropes together, and I've been climbing X months, I just climbed 5.YYy in my gym, how long till I can climb 5.ZZzzzzz... Same damn questions over and over. People are too lazy to use the search box in the upper right, they're far too lazy to read a couple pages of educational discourse.

I agree. I feel like unique visitors come more from beginners that just walked out of the gym for their first time than those that are visiting from external climbing sites cuz they heard of some new content on RC. Mayyyyyyyybe when Aric did the Alien cam pulling, I suppose that kind of stuff happened.

Some fancy, interactive tool (more than a text-based FAQ in the forum) would probably keep noobs here a bit. Some kind of flash application.

Now I'm actually kind of curious. If RC.com wasn't "rockclimbing.com" would it be financially viable? I mean, MP.com is ranked by Alexa as #73,071 most viewed website vs RC.com at #59681. Of key interest here is that RC.com is the #1 search result for "rock climbing" whereas MP.com doesn't even make google's first 10 pages of results!

Supertopo is around #110,000. They're on like the 7th page of results or something. I have to imagine that MP.com's route database is what makes it such a popular website--despite the unlikelihood that a beginner would ever first stumble upon that site first by searching google.

Edit: I had to scroll to the very bottom of the front page to find this "New climbers: check out our introduction: rock climbing basics! " I'd think this would be a little more heavily emphasized.


(This post was edited by spikeddem on Feb 8, 2011, 4:49 PM)


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 4:47 PM
Post #26 of 147 (2006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30358

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

well that is a lot of hogwash. A social contract to provide content? the Knob had that bite at the apple, and ran off most anyone who knew what they were talking about just so they could coddle n00bs--those unique users you are after.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 5:11 PM
Post #27 of 147 (1991 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 5:12 PM
Post #28 of 147 (1989 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community?

Nope. Perfectly happy with how it is now.


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 5:30 PM
Post #29 of 147 (1979 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20698

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
blondgecko wrote:

That there's more climbing content and community in the BET thread than elsewhere on the site is not something for the BET crew to be proud of - IMHO it's something they should be ashamed of.

That's pretty funny. The truth is, all the climbing chatter is mixed in with the rest of the stuff. WHat's the alternative? Post a bunch of trip reports? I did that for a while, it's kind of fun, but at the end of the day it's mostly just spray. I'd rather just spray my buddies down and talk a little smack.

The BET is really just a chat room, and I prefer that format over the split forums. The model for those forums seems to be to ask a question and get a million responses, and then a couple guys wank about who is right and who is rong. Who cares? sez I.

And the whole point of the BET being semi- exclusive is so that it doesn't become like the rest of the site-- a million voices drowning each other out with idiocy. I prefer the idiocy of those I know. We don't need poster ratings, or star ratings or a search function, because you basically know the other posters, so there isn't the same choss to sift through.

The BET was born kind of because the rest of the site was going to shit in that there was just so much bad information being posted so often, that it became comical! It still is. You can log onto this site and read some insane stuff. If you have a certain sense of humor, it will make you laff. So you joke about it a bit with your friends.

I feel like I need to do the slow, one person clap, while everyone else gradually joins in to a roaring applause.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 5:45 PM
Post #30 of 147 (1971 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? When it was ran by MR, Adam, J_Ung the climbers on here had something to "work" for. And many many donated time and money to helping it. It's now owned by a corporation and ran by a guy across the world I don't know if anyone has met. People would be upset if it died while it was a General Store... not when it's a Walmart.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 5:47 PM
Post #31 of 147 (1967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     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)  
 

Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 5:49 PM
Post #32 of 147 (2104 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30358

     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 (1 rating)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community?

Nope. Perfectly happy with how it is now.

+1.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 5:56 PM
Post #34 of 147 (2095 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     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)  
 

Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less? We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on. Don't confuse BET with every user out there that hurt your butt or makes sarcastic comments.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 5:57 PM
Post #35 of 147 (2092 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30358

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

well you have a few facts wrong there spike.

We are actually the 2nd and 3rd gen 'community' or whatever of RC.com. The first two largely quit climbing, and whoever was left, left the site because their friends quit climbing. we still have rrradam, who boulders in a home woody once in a while.

the BET has already been locked. We're now in BET 2.0.

I am aware that we have little to no 'leverage' as you put it. This isn't really a concern to me. If I get the boot, or if the site shuts down, the world keeps on turning. It's everyone else who gets all upset about the BET. And that does not bother me.

Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 5:58 PM
Post #36 of 147 (2087 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

I felt offended by his signature slandering Sungam. Ad Hominem attacks in sigs should be a banzable offense.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 5:59 PM
Post #37 of 147 (2086 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     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 (1 rating)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 6:01 PM
Post #38 of 147 (2082 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

well you have a few facts wrong there spike.

We are actually the 2nd and 3rd gen 'community' or whatever of RC.com. The first two largely quit climbing, and whoever was left, left the site because their friends quit climbing. we still have rrradam, who boulders in a home woody once in a while.

the BET has already been locked. We're now in BET 2.0.

I am aware that we have little to no 'leverage' as you put it. This isn't really a concern to me. If I get the boot, or if the site shuts down, the world keeps on turning. It's everyone else who gets all upset about the BET. And that does not bother me.

Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

All of your post, especially the last bit, leads me to believe that you're alright--especially for a clown.

Edit: I wouldn't really count that first BET, so as the SPCI was locked for the same reason--volume, not anything else, really.


(This post was edited by spikeddem on Feb 8, 2011, 6:05 PM)


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 6:02 PM
Post #39 of 147 (2081 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20698

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
We are actually the 2nd and 3rd gen 'community' or whatever of RC.com. The first two largely quit climbing, and whoever was left, left the site because their friends quit climbing. we still have rrradam, who boulders in a home woody once in a while.

speak for yourself. I'm an OG.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 6:04 PM
Post #40 of 147 (2076 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 6:13 PM
Post #41 of 147 (2063 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     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)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.


(This post was edited by jakedatc on Feb 8, 2011, 6:14 PM)


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 6:13 PM
Post #42 of 147 (2062 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     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)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?
Ooooooooooh ok ok ok. Now I got what you were saying earlier. Well, first off, I make about 1-2 posts per day in the SPCI now. Secondly, I suppose I can understand where the BET is coming from since it apparently feels attacked by some of the posts in this thread.

A couple of the members did stir up the pot first though.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 6:14 PM
Post #43 of 147 (2062 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30358

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

well you have a few facts wrong there spike.

We are actually the 2nd and 3rd gen 'community' or whatever of RC.com. The first two largely quit climbing, and whoever was left, left the site because their friends quit climbing. we still have rrradam, who boulders in a home woody once in a while.

the BET has already been locked. We're now in BET 2.0.

I am aware that we have little to no 'leverage' as you put it. This isn't really a concern to me. If I get the boot, or if the site shuts down, the world keeps on turning. It's everyone else who gets all upset about the BET. And that does not bother me.

Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

All of your post, especially the last bit, leads me to believe that you're alright--especially for a clown.

Edit: I wouldn't really count that first BET, so as the SPCI was locked for the same reason--volume, not anything else, really.

well don't be fooled. We held the Coffee Shop's head under water until their legs stopped moving.


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #44 of 147 (2055 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20698

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #45 of 147 (2055 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30358

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?
Ooooooooooh ok ok ok. Now I got what you were saying earlier. Well, first off, I make about 1-2 posts per day in the SPCI now. Secondly, I suppose I can understand where the BET is coming from since it apparently feels attacked by some of the posts in this thread.

A couple of the members did stir up the pot first though.

meh. This thread got kind of funny and a bit interesting for a minute. Hard to resist when cracklover tries to tickle me with the ostrich feather, what can I say?


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #46 of 147 (2054 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.
I could not agree with this more. I haven't PC++ since my banz a few months ago.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 6:18 PM
Post #47 of 147 (2049 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [camhead] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 6:20 PM
Post #48 of 147 (2047 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Heh, someone sounds butthurt.

To go on with your hypothetical, what effect do we see on the negative responses given in General, Beginners, A&E, etc... ? Perhaps 1% or less?

Huh?

In reply to:
We usually don't play around outside of our scummunity except when someone gets an ingrown hair in their hemorrhoids - like today - and we latch on.

OK, yeah. That's what I just said.

So, you're agreeing that we don't usually do much damage outside our little insiders thread, but saying that we don't hold much value either, so we should be pushed out of here? Is that just specific to us because you're still butthurt we didn't let you in, or are you going to be impartial and lobby for getting rid of all of community? Certainly we should be getting rid of the chat thread that you participate in daily, no? Perhaps we should have monthly evaluations to critique how much random users have participated and decide whether or not they should be voted off the island?
Ooooooooooh ok ok ok. Now I got what you were saying earlier. Well, first off, I make about 1-2 posts per day in the SPCI now. Secondly, I suppose I can understand where the BET is coming from since it apparently feels attacked by some of the posts in this thread.

A couple of the members did stir up the pot first though.

meh. This thread got kind of funny and a bit interesting for a minute. Hard to resist when cracklover tries to tickle me with the ostrich feather, what can I say?
Show me on the clown where this "cracklover" tickled you.



Khoi


Feb 8, 2011, 6:25 PM
Post #49 of 147 (2038 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2008
Posts: 292

     Re: 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)  
 

What is BET???


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 6:29 PM
Post #50 of 147 (2034 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30358

     Re: [Khoi] 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)  
 

Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

It is a group of very bad people. Look away!


snoopy138


Feb 8, 2011, 6:41 PM
Post #51 of 147 (1944 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28717

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

obviously you haven't GUd teh entire BET.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 6:52 PM
Post #52 of 147 (1931 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     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 (0 ratings)  
 

snoopy138 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

obviously you haven't GUd teh entire BET.

nope. i think i walked in on page 300 sumtin was just trying to plan a weekend of climbing and stayed.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 7:00 PM
Post #54 of 147 (1919 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9592

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? When it was ran by MR, Adam, J_Ung the climbers on here had something to "work" for. And many many donated time and money to helping it. It's now owned by a corporation and ran by a guy across the world I don't know if anyone has met. People would be upset if it died while it was a General Store... not when it's a Walmart.

There are a few of us that have met ddt


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 7:02 PM
Post #55 of 147 (1915 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9592

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

That's because the username didn't exist until three years after you joined the site


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 7:07 PM
Post #56 of 147 (1911 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9592

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

I can't imagine where they might have learned this


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 7:13 PM
Post #57 of 147 (2004 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     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)  
 

climbs4fun wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

I can't imagine where they might have learned this

i was not around for the beginnings of BET so i don't know how much of that was in the beginning.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 7:16 PM
Post #58 of 147 (1999 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     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)  
 

climbs4fun wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

That's because the username didn't exist until three years after you joined the site
Touche! Not too bad of estimating on my part. Haha. That being said, looking through a history of his posts the same would be said even if his account was 8 years old. Compare to someone like camhead who regularly posts to other forums on thissite.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 7:19 PM
Post #59 of 147 (1997 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30358

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

That's because the username didn't exist until three years after you joined the site
Touche! Not too bad of estimating on my part. Haha. That being said, looking through a history of his posts the same would be said even if his account was 8 years old. Compare to someone like camhead who regularly posts to other forums on thissite.

What about drivel? That dude is a n00b.


Khoi


Feb 8, 2011, 7:19 PM
Post #60 of 147 (1995 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2008
Posts: 292

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

It is a group of very bad people. Look away!

That doesn't tell me what it is.


tripperjm


Feb 8, 2011, 7:35 PM
Post #61 of 147 (1985 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 10609

     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 (1 rating)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

But what about awl teh lurkers? What will happen to awl of them? Where will they awl go?

We contribute plenty. Teh BET v2 has 60450 posts and 928631 views. so that's like uhhh.... 870,000 more views than posts. Sumbody is reading awl that shit contributed content.


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 7:39 PM
Post #62 of 147 (1975 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20698

     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 (0 ratings)  
 

tripperjm wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

But what about awl teh lurkers? What will happen to awl of them? Where will they awl go?

We contribute plenty. Teh BET v2 has 60450 posts and 928631 views. so that's like uhhh.... 870,000 more views than posts. Sumbody is reading awl that shit contributed content.

this is true. BETers should be getting paid salaries like any reality show contestants.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 7:51 PM
Post #63 of 147 (1969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [Khoi] 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)  
 

Khoi wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

It is a group of very bad people. Look away!

That doesn't tell me what it is.

You know that thread in the Campground labelled "You are not wanted here"? The one with 60,000-odd posts in it?

Yeah, that's them.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:00 PM
Post #64 of 147 (1960 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
well that is a lot of hogwash. A social contract to provide content?

+1. This site is a business for chrissake.

Jay


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:06 PM
Post #65 of 147 (1957 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? .

+1


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 8:07 PM
Post #66 of 147 (1954 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

jt512 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? .

+1

It's obviously doing something for you, otherwise you wouldn't be here.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:09 PM
Post #67 of 147 (1951 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

     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 (1 rating)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 8:16 PM
Post #68 of 147 (1941 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     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)  
 

jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:17 PM
Post #69 of 147 (1939 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

     Re: [Khoi] 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)  
 

Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

Boys Eroticizing Tripperjm

Jay


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:20 PM
Post #70 of 147 (1936 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
drivel wrote:
Two comments-

A) I wrote a very popular thread for a while here that I'm pretty sure had a lot of unique hits, but after a while it was wasn't worth it to me to write anymore, because I got relatively few responses for how long I spent writing the trip reports. Thousands of pageviews on that thread, and maybe 4 or 5 responses to each trip report that took me a few hours to write and edit.

ii) once upon a time, I was given free shoes (Free shooz!) to review. I wrote a gear review that was highly informative and, I think, pretty entertaining, duly submitted and the then-gear guy *never bothered to publish it*

Don't know anything about the shoe review - but I know the thread you're talking about. It got resurrected after almost a year just so someone could tell you how inspiring they found it. That has to count for something?

The point is that you contributed something (one of the better contributions on rc.com, actually) that added to the community spirit and interest on the site. That's exactly what we need - we just need the load spread over more people, so it's relatively easy for each individual. This next isn't directed at you:

Many people on this thread are bitching about how the rc.com community has fallen apart, about how all the good people have left, about how nobody posts anything worthwhile, and how rc.com is simply a n00b-infested cesspit now. They're bitching, and blaming the site management... and doing absolutely nothing to change it.

You want rc.com to be worthwhile? You want it to be a vibrant and interesting community? Then for goodness' sake, be a part of the community you want it to be. Be the sort of person you want to see posting. Build the critical mass that brings other interesting and knowledgable people in.

You can do that - or, you can bitch, and moan, and complain, and flame, and confine yourselves to your little enclaves, until one day rockclimbing.com comes up with nothing more than 404 Not Found - or, more likely, a cybersquatter site.

Fix: Search engine see: MP.com
Fix: Route database see: MP.com
Fix: Photo section including photo uploading see: MP.com
Fix: Killfile see: RC pre-ddt

Been asking for these changes for years and jack shit has been done about them. What is the point of helping a site that doesn't help back? .

+1

It's obviously doing something for you, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

And I'm doing something for it? What's your point?

Jay


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:22 PM
Post #71 of 147 (1932 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.

Prove that the page clicks on the BET thread generate little to no money for the site.

Jay


snoopy138


Feb 8, 2011, 8:26 PM
Post #72 of 147 (1925 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28717

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
snoopy138 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

obviously you haven't GUd teh entire BET.

nope. i think i walked in on page 300 sumtin was just trying to plan a weekend of climbing and stayed.

not page 300 of the OGBET, that's for sure.


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 8:30 PM
Post #73 of 147 (1916 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     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 (0 ratings)  
 

snoopy138 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
snoopy138 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

obviously you haven't GUd teh entire BET.

nope. i think i walked in on page 300 sumtin was just trying to plan a weekend of climbing and stayed.

not page 300 of the OGBET, that's for sure.

i dunno.. march or april 2-3 years ago.. i forget


(This post was edited by jakedatc on Feb 8, 2011, 8:31 PM)


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 8, 2011, 8:38 PM
Post #74 of 147 (1908 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     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)  
 

jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.

Prove that the page clicks on the BET thread generate little to no money for the site.

Jay

Not being privy to the internal workings of the rc.com business model, I of course cannot prove this - but I can make some informed predictions. If ddt's smart, he's hosting ads based upon the common model of payment per thousand views - under which model the BET thread would seem to be profitable. However - just about all advertisers filter the stats so that internal actions by users (posting, reloading, going to the next page, etc.) don't actually add to the count, but as far as I'm aware most of these actions do add to the "thread views" count. So to get a feel for how many views of the BET threads actually add to the site's revenue, divide that 900,000 views number by at least ten. So, 90,000 unique views in a year and a half? Yawn - if you want to be making real money out of a site, you need to be getting those sort of numbers per day.

Of course, if he's going with the pay per click model, well... what are the chances that anyone in the BET threads ever clicks on ads here?


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 8:48 PM
Post #75 of 147 (1902 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.

Prove that the page clicks on the BET thread generate little to no money for the site.

Jay

Not being privy to the internal workings of the rc.com business model, I of course cannot prove this - but I can make some informed predictions. If ddt's smart, he's hosting ads based upon the common model of payment per thousand views - under which model the BET thread would seem to be profitable. However - just about all advertisers filter the stats so that internal actions by users (posting, reloading, going to the next page, etc.) don't actually add to the count, but as far as I'm aware most of these actions do add to the "thread views" count. So to get a feel for how many views of the BET threads actually add to the site's revenue, divide that 900,000 views number by at least ten. So, 90,000 unique views in a year and a half? Yawn - if you want to be making real money out of a site, you need to be getting those sort of numbers per day.

Still, it's 90,000 views in a year and a half that wouldn't be there otherwise. That's revenue for the site with zero marginal cost. Free money.

Jay


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:11 PM
Post #76 of 147 (1883 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

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

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

all i can hear is

In reply to:
blah, blah blah, petz, bakingz, gardenz, when's jack gonna post?


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:13 PM
Post #77 of 147 (2066 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
well that is a lot of hogwash. A social contract to provide content? the Knob had that bite at the apple, and ran off most anyone who knew what they were talking about just so they could coddle n00bs--those unique users you are after.

best clown post ever.


notapplicable


Feb 8, 2011, 11:11 PM
Post #78 of 147 (2045 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17763

     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 (0 ratings)  
 

tripperjm wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

But what about awl teh lurkers? What will happen to awl of them? Where will they awl go?

We contribute plenty. Teh BET v2 has 60450 posts and 928631 views. so that's like uhhh.... 870,000 more views than posts. Sumbody is reading awl that shit contributed content.

The SPCI has a substantially higher view count to post count ratio than any incarnation of the BET. It is clear who's content is more highly valued round these parts.


(This post was edited by notapplicable on Feb 8, 2011, 11:11 PM)


notapplicable


Feb 8, 2011, 11:33 PM
Post #79 of 147 (2035 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17763

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250


notapplicable


Feb 8, 2011, 11:39 PM
Post #80 of 147 (2032 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17763

     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)  
 

I seem to be a bit shy of 8/10. kind of surprised by that, actually.


(This post was edited by notapplicable on Feb 8, 2011, 11:42 PM)


ddt


Feb 8, 2011, 11:54 PM
Post #81 of 147 (2028 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

     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)  
 

jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.

Prove that the page clicks on the BET thread generate little to no money for the site.

Jay

Not being privy to the internal workings of the rc.com business model, I of course cannot prove this - but I can make some informed predictions. If ddt's smart, he's hosting ads based upon the common model of payment per thousand views - under which model the BET thread would seem to be profitable. However - just about all advertisers filter the stats so that internal actions by users (posting, reloading, going to the next page, etc.) don't actually add to the count, but as far as I'm aware most of these actions do add to the "thread views" count. So to get a feel for how many views of the BET threads actually add to the site's revenue, divide that 900,000 views number by at least ten. So, 90,000 unique views in a year and a half? Yawn - if you want to be making real money out of a site, you need to be getting those sort of numbers per day.

Still, it's 90,000 views in a year and a half that wouldn't be there otherwise. That's revenue for the site with zero marginal cost. Free money.

Jay

In the rc.com forums 1 million page views translates to roughly $300 to $500 in revenue. That's spread over a number of years of course for the BET. And I disagree that it comes with zero marginal cost.

To put the relative contribution in perspective, $300 is enough to cover approx 1 week of hosting for the site. Or 2 days of a full-time paid person, of which rc.com currently has 2.

I'm not saying we don't appreciate the revenue. I'm just trying to put it in perspective.

DDT


ddt


Feb 9, 2011, 12:00 AM
Post #82 of 147 (2021 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

     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)  
 

jt512 wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
well that is a lot of hogwash. A social contract to provide content?

+1. This site is a business for chrissake.

Jay

It sure is... one that relies heavily on a healthy community, which in turns relies on a successful business. A symbiosis in which we need each other.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 9, 2011, 1:40 AM
Post #83 of 147 (2004 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     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)  
 

notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.


meatbomz


Feb 9, 2011, 5:36 AM
Post #84 of 147 (1983 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

     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 (1 rating)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

That's because the username didn't exist until three years after you joined the site
Touche! Not too bad of estimating on my part. Haha. That being said, looking through a history of his posts the same would be said even if his account was 8 years old. Compare to someone like camhead who regularly posts to other forums on thissite.

I've got a variety of other things going on in my life and when I come to the knob I just want to hang out with my imaginary internet friends. I'm knot here to entertain ewe!

And for the record, my last account was a "supporting member". I'd be happy to pay ~$35-50 per year a la NPR. It may not be a huge revenue stream but it seemed strange that with all the whining about money that such a simple, voluntary route would be eschewed.


meatbomz


Feb 9, 2011, 5:40 AM
Post #85 of 147 (1980 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

     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)  
 

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

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

all i can hear is

In reply to:
blah, blah blah, petz, bakingz, gardenz, when's jack gonna post?

it's funny because it's true


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 5:48 AM
Post #86 of 147 (1969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
But there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Whoo! that's ME!


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 5:49 AM
Post #87 of 147 (1966 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     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)  
 

meatbomz wrote:
I've got a variety of other things going on in my life and when I come to the knob I just want to hang out with my imaginary internet friends. I'm knot here to entertain ewe!

Okay everyone - it's time for a moments silence for meatbombz's dignity.

*br br brrrrr br br brrrrrrrr*

But seriously, this is a climbing site. Not some "hi guys!" chat site. I think that we should not only ban JT and Curt and PTC, but also anyone that seems to be having too much fun. Climbing is NOT ABOUT FUN. It is about knots, grades, funky metal things, the gunks and strangely coloured shoes.


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 5:53 AM
Post #88 of 147 (1963 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

rong!


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 6:00 AM
Post #90 of 147 (1951 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

I can't imagine where they might have learned this

i was not around for the beginnings of BET so i don't know how much of that was in the beginning.

Every BET style thread goes through the same growing spurts. SPCI must be in the pre-adolescent stage where bukkake icons reign heavy. Soon there will be a bromance stage with weekend climbing outings, maybe a few bike rides. And then the breakup...


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 6:02 AM
Post #91 of 147 (1945 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
Khoi wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

It is a group of very bad people. Look away!

That doesn't tell me what it is.

You know that thread in the Campground labelled "You are not wanted here"? The one with 60,000-odd posts in it?

Yeah, that's them.

now why did you go and do that?


airscape


Feb 9, 2011, 6:03 AM
Post #92 of 147 (1942 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

     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)  
 

sungam wrote:
meatbomz wrote:
I've got a variety of other things going on in my life and when I come to the knob I just want to hang out with my imaginary internet friends. I'm knot here to entertain ewe!

Okay everyone - it's time for a moments silence for meatbombz's dignity.

*br br brrrrr br br brrrrrrrr*

But seriously, this is a climbing site. Not some "hi guys!" chat site. I think that we should not only ban JT and Curt and PTC, but also anyone that seems to be having too much fun. Climbing is NOT ABOUT FUN. It is about knots, grades, funky metal things, the gunks and strangely coloured shoes.

Also there is some irish or welsh bloke in one of those threads posting about dark matters and maths and working for free (<--Communist!!).

That is also totally inappropriate.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 6:21 AM
Post #93 of 147 (1930 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.
Yes, the pci went downhill with the loss of Laz, and I'm sorry to admit, Wolfy. I actually get a little frustrated about not being able to talk about normal shit (ie something not aimed at boosting the PC) in there sometimes.
This may sound ironic coming from me of all people, but I'm kinda "over" the PC race. I'm still butthurt that I'm a way down in 5th or whatever it is now, though.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 6:24 AM
Post #94 of 147 (1927 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     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)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

I felt offended by his signature slandering Sungam. Ad Hominem attacks in sigs should be a banzable offense.
Yes. yes! Banz him nao!

Ad hominem attacks in sig lines should not be tolerated!



Wait, what? AB, are you defending my honour? How genteel of you.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 6:28 AM
Post #95 of 147 (1922 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     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)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
What about drivel? That dude is a n00b.
So it IS a dude? I knew it awl along!
caughtinside wrote:
well don't be fooled. We held the Coffee Shop's head under water until their legs stopped moving.
HAH!


notapplicable


Feb 9, 2011, 7:04 AM
Post #97 of 147 (1895 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17763

     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)  
 

sungam wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

I felt offended by his signature slandering Sungam. Ad Hominem attacks in sigs should be a banzable offense.
Yes. yes! Banz him nao!

Ad hominem attacks in sig lines should not be tolerated!



Wait, what? AB, are you defending my honour? How genteel of you.

If his sig. warrants banzing, you have to go as well. Then the two of you can suck alot, together, somewhere else. where I don't have to hear about it.


tripperjm


Feb 9, 2011, 7:05 AM
Post #99 of 147 (1891 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 10609

     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)  
 

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

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

all i can hear is

In reply to:
blah, blah blah, petz, bakingz, gardenz, when's jack gonna post?

it's funny because it's true

Even though I rule with an iron fist... My people, they lurve me.


notapplicable


Feb 9, 2011, 7:16 AM
Post #102 of 147 (1513 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17763

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 7:27 AM
Post #103 of 147 (1495 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     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)  
 

notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

"SPCI, like the BET but we don't tell you to play in traffic blindfolded" Snappy!


camhead


Feb 9, 2011, 7:29 AM
Post #104 of 147 (1492 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20698

     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)  
 

notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

We've been over this before.

You guys are the Little SPCI Achievers, disadvantaged users without the means for the necessary means to succeed in the BET. Proud we are of all of you.


airscape


Feb 9, 2011, 7:34 AM
Post #105 of 147 (1483 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

     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)  
 

camhead wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

We've been over this before.

You guys are the Little SPCI Achievers, disadvantaged users without the means for the necessary means to succeed in the BET. Proud we are of all of you.

You are making me/everyone want to post in the BET, it seems the only way I can call myself Elite.

I shall start promptly.


jakedatc


Feb 9, 2011, 7:47 AM
Post #106 of 147 (1473 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     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)  
 

airscape wrote:
camhead wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

We've been over this before.

You guys are the Little SPCI Achievers, disadvantaged users without the means for the necessary means to succeed in the BET. Proud we are of all of you.

You are making me/everyone want to post in the BET, it seems the only way I can call myself Elite.

I shall start promptly.

no it isn't.

do not.


spikeddem


Feb 9, 2011, 8:03 AM
Post #107 of 147 (1454 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
airscape wrote:
camhead wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

We've been over this before.

You guys are the Little SPCI Achievers, disadvantaged users without the means for the necessary means to succeed in the BET. Proud we are of all of you.

You are making me/everyone want to post in the BET, it seems the only way I can call myself Elite.

I shall start promptly.

no it isn't.

do not.
Remember when I did so then doc feel good started spamming long ass posts in the SPCI, and you guys laffed?

Haha.

Oh yeah, then I did the exact same thing in BET and you guys cried.

Haha.

Oh yeah, and then a mod told me to stop or I'd be banned?

Haha.

Oh yeah, great modding.


(This post was edited by spikeddem on Feb 9, 2011, 8:05 AM)


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 8:07 AM
Post #108 of 147 (1446 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
airscape wrote:
camhead wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

We've been over this before.

You guys are the Little SPCI Achievers, disadvantaged users without the means for the necessary means to succeed in the BET. Proud we are of all of you.

You are making me/everyone want to post in the BET, it seems the only way I can call myself Elite.

I shall start promptly.

no it isn't.

do not.
Remember when I did so then doc feel good started spamming long ass posts in the SPCI, and you guys laffed?

Haha.

Oh yeah, then I did the exact same thing in BET and you guys cried.

Haha.

Oh yeah, and then a mod told me to stop or I'd be banned?

Haha.

Oh yeah, great modding.
Hah, then INC posted that quote from War and Peace and I was like "damn, that's some good writing" and went to the library to get it. Good book.

Thanks, INC!


spikeddem


Feb 9, 2011, 8:10 AM
Post #109 of 147 (1439 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

     Re: [sungam] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

sungam wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
airscape wrote:
camhead wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

We've been over this before.

You guys are the Little SPCI Achievers, disadvantaged users without the means for the necessary means to succeed in the BET. Proud we are of all of you.

You are making me/everyone want to post in the BET, it seems the only way I can call myself Elite.

I shall start promptly.

no it isn't.

do not.
Remember when I did so then doc feel good started spamming long ass posts in the SPCI, and you guys laffed?

Haha.

Oh yeah, then I did the exact same thing in BET and you guys cried.

Haha.

Oh yeah, and then a mod told me to stop or I'd be banned?

Haha.

Oh yeah, great modding.
Hah, then INC posted that quote from War and Peace and I was like "damn, that's some good writing" and went to the library to get it. Good book.

Thanks, INC!

Oh yeah.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 8:12 AM
Post #110 of 147 (1438 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     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)  
 

p.s. that was some baaaaaalin' modding.


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 8:16 AM
Post #111 of 147 (1430 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     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)  
 

sungam wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
airscape wrote:
camhead wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

We've been over this before.

You guys are the Little SPCI Achievers, disadvantaged users without the means for the necessary means to succeed in the BET. Proud we are of all of you.

You are making me/everyone want to post in the BET, it seems the only way I can call myself Elite.

I shall start promptly.

no it isn't.

do not.
Remember when I did so then doc feel good started spamming long ass posts in the SPCI, and you guys laffed?

Haha.

Oh yeah, then I did the exact same thing in BET and you guys cried.

Haha.

Oh yeah, and then a mod told me to stop or I'd be banned?

Haha.

Oh yeah, great modding.
Hah, then INC posted that quote from War and Peace and I was like "damn, that's some good writing" and went to the library to get it. Good book.

Thanks, INC!

Twas doc that posted pages of war and peace, I only posted the part of the Duel between you and Stymingersfink, where you killed him!

But doc was threatened with the ban as well for the mass text postings.


drivel


Feb 9, 2011, 8:16 AM
Post #112 of 147 (1430 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

     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)  
 

sungam wrote:
p.s. that was some baaaaaalin' modding.

ballin' has two Ls.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 8:44 AM
Post #113 of 147 (1416 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

drivel wrote:
sungam wrote:
p.s. that was some baaaaaalin' modding.

ballin' has two Ls.
Heh. My bad.


ddt


Feb 9, 2011, 8:45 AM
Post #114 of 147 (1414 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

     Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

This thread has drifted way off topic... let's stick to the topic, or take it elsewhere.

DDT

Edit: OK, I've since detached all the off-topic posts to create this new thread.


(This post was edited by ddt on Feb 9, 2011, 1:07 PM)


Partner cracklover


Feb 9, 2011, 10:52 AM
Post #116 of 147 (1378 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9972

     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)  
 

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:

In reply to:
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:

In reply to:
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


Partner cracklover


Feb 9, 2011, 10:55 AM
Post #117 of 147 (1370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9972

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO


jakedatc


Feb 9, 2011, 11:21 AM
Post #118 of 147 (1345 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic. Think back to some of the winter months.. it was way more social than beta. Being in community it can be more of a chat thread.

BET has had decent meet ups at Rumney, RRG, Gunks, various Socal places, IC, Mo's wedding (which included Camden and Acadia)

I started climbing with Doc, Jay, and Mo on a regular basis through BET.. have met Meatbomz, camhead, dribble, chossy, GG, Marco and by association Lena and Curt. others have done similar

There is encouragement to improve. you just have to not take yourself seriously and have thick enough skin to realize it.


Partner cracklover


Feb 9, 2011, 11:46 AM
Post #119 of 147 (1327 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9972

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO


jakedatc


Feb 9, 2011, 11:59 AM
Post #120 of 147 (1313 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.


drivel


Feb 9, 2011, 12:03 PM
Post #121 of 147 (1306 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.


camhead


Feb 9, 2011, 12:08 PM
Post #122 of 147 (1293 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20698

     Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.

I'm not either.

technically, nobody is original there, except the chossmarmots. They really got butthurt about the invasion of the Californians back in the day. Diversity! Melting Pot! E pluribus unum! A nation of immigrants!


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 12:11 PM
Post #123 of 147 (1290 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26569

     Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
 

drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.
And me, I'm not. But, you know, I'm totally "one of the gang" now. Camhead said if I sent him pictures of myself in my crocsock/borat swimsuit he'd "let me in the loop".


snoopy138


Feb 9, 2011, 12:12 PM
Post #124 of 147 (1283 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28717

     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)  
 

camhead wrote:
drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.

I'm not either.

technically, nobody is original there, except the chossmarmots. They really got butthurt about the invasion of the Californians back in the day. Diversity! Melting Pot! E pluribus unum! A nation of immigrants!

CI actually posted on page 1.


jakedatc


Feb 9, 2011, 12:52 PM
Post #127 of 147 (2099 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

     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 (0 ratings)  
 

DDT the split and hidden posts from Meatbomz have screwed up the page count...


ddt


Feb 9, 2011, 12:53 PM
Post #128 of 147 (2098 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

     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)  
 

Note: This thread was created by splitting a (mostly) off-topic sub-thread from an earlier thread.

DDT


meatbomz


Feb 9, 2011, 12:59 PM
Post #129 of 147 (2088 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

     Re: [ddt] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

ddt wrote:
Note: This thread was created by splitting a (mostly) off-topic sub-thread from an earlier thread.

DDT

Now there are two fireboats in the S&F harbor


kachoong


Feb 9, 2011, 1:01 PM
Post #130 of 147 (2082 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

     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 (0 ratings)  
 

snoopy138 wrote:
camhead wrote:
drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.

I'm not either.

technically, nobody is original there, except the chossmarmots. They really got butthurt about the invasion of the Californians back in the day. Diversity! Melting Pot! E pluribus unum! A nation of immigrants!

CI actually posted on page 1.

I think I didn't make an appearance until about page 2.


Partner cracklover


Feb 9, 2011, 1:06 PM
Post #131 of 147 (2076 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9972

     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)  
 

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in BET, and I think spike took this thread way off topic with the suggestion of trying to root out BET threads.

I was simply responding to Jake's claim that Mass Climbers and BET threads are equivalent. I don't think I've seen anyone refute any of the points I made in my response (that they're rather different animals), but that's not really important.

Anyway, I'd guess that most users who are here for climbing content are probably unaware of the BET threads, so I can't see as how they do any harm to the site. And it's at least a fair argument that they do some good via creating additional hits.

What's really at stake is what kind of tone is set here in the forums at large, and whether more/less/different moderation could impact that tone in a positive way. I don't think it's fair to target BET threads, or even any kind of BET style of posting. Yes, some individual posters take a dance-around-the-funeral-pyre of rc.com attitude, enjoying the sowing of chaos and discontent as much as possible. Yes, some of them may have learned that in the BET threads.

If that's an issue, go after it. If it's not, go after whatever you think is an issue. There have been plenty of suggestions in this and other threads.

GO


camhead


Feb 9, 2011, 1:14 PM
Post #132 of 147 (2068 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20698

     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)  
 

incidentally, saying "BET Thread' is redundant, the same way that saying "ATM machine" is redundant.


Partner cracklover


Feb 9, 2011, 1:30 PM
Post #133 of 147 (2050 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9972

     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)  
 

camhead wrote:
incidentally, saying "BET Thread' is redundant, the same way that saying "ATM machine" is redundant.

ATM = Automated Teller Machine (or something like that).

BET = ???? haven't the slightest idea.

BET is just one of thousands of bits of BET jargon that is mostly unintelligible except by context or as a reference to a prior usage of same.

GO


drivel


Feb 9, 2011, 1:35 PM
Post #134 of 147 (2044 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

     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)  
 

cracklover wrote:
camhead wrote:
incidentally, saying "BET Thread' is redundant, the same way that saying "ATM machine" is redundant.

ATM = Automated Teller Machine (or something like that).

BET = ???? haven't the slightest idea.

BET is just one of thousands of bits of BET jargon that is mostly unintelligible except by context or as a reference to a prior usage of same.

GO

in a spirit of magnanimousness, BET stands for Brent_E Thread.

also...
cracklover wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in BET,

for not giving a shit, you sure have liked to bitch about it lately.


Partner cracklover


Feb 9, 2011, 1:49 PM
Post #135 of 147 (2033 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9972

     Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

drivel wrote:
cracklover wrote:
camhead wrote:
incidentally, saying "BET Thread' is redundant, the same way that saying "ATM machine" is redundant.

ATM = Automated Teller Machine (or something like that).

BET = ???? haven't the slightest idea.

BET is just one of thousands of bits of BET jargon that is mostly unintelligible except by context or as a reference to a prior usage of same.

GO

in a spirit of magnanimousness, BET stands for Brent_E Thread.

also...
cracklover wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in BET,

for not giving a shit, you sure have liked to bitch about it lately.

Really? When have ever bitched about the BET threads?

Seriously, I don't think I ever have. I sometimes have issues with the BET-ification of other parts of the site, as when meatbomz were being thrown around throughout the site, even in I&A, but that's a totally different issue.

But I said that already, so I'm not sure if you just don't believe me, or what?

GO


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 9, 2011, 2:08 PM
Post #136 of 147 (2018 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 (0 ratings)  
 

cracklover wrote:
drivel wrote:
cracklover wrote:
camhead wrote:
incidentally, saying "BET Thread' is redundant, the same way that saying "ATM machine" is redundant.

ATM = Automated Teller Machine (or something like that).

BET = ???? haven't the slightest idea.

BET is just one of thousands of bits of BET jargon that is mostly unintelligible except by context or as a reference to a prior usage of same.

GO

in a spirit of magnanimousness, BET stands for Brent_E Thread.

also...
cracklover wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in BET,

for not giving a shit, you sure have liked to bitch about it lately.

Really? When have ever bitched about the BET threads?

Seriously, I don't think I ever have. I sometimes have issues with the BET-ification of other parts of the site, as when meatbomz were being thrown around throughout the site, even in I&A, but that's a totally different issue.

But I said that already, so I'm not sure if you just don't believe me, or what?

GO

Those meatbomz were pretty hilarious.


granite_grrl


Feb 9, 2011, 6:39 PM
Post #137 of 147 (1990 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14696

     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)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.
I dunno, I post fairly regularly to threads that I think might become interesting, but my replies are becoming shorter and shorter when I see how they get lost in the noise that's out there.

When someone isn't appreciated by the mob they realize that it's a lot more fun to give their opinions to a group that will actually read what they wrote (minus teh skimbitches) and give informative feedback. I'm a little sick of having some n00b tell me that stick clips are cheating and that yoga is what helped them get past the 5.10 barrier.


granite_grrl


Feb 9, 2011, 6:44 PM
Post #138 of 147 (1985 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14696

     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)  
 

Ho, and FWIW I can one-up drivel in the unappreciated gear review effort.

Went through a lot of shit to get a pack for review that I thought was pretty crappy and uncomfortable.....but for a good review I used it for a solid two months. Two months with a pack that I went through hell to get, was super uncomfortable, tested for trad, sport and ice climbing and nobody ever got back to me about it.

Always figured it was because I didn't give it a rave review, but obviously I wasn't the only one who spent time on a review that RC.com wasn't interested in.


granite_grrl


Feb 9, 2011, 6:50 PM
Post #139 of 147 (1983 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14696

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.
You know what lures most people to this site who have no interest in getting heavily involved? The route database (even though there's A LOT or room for improvement). Most people don't pop in here for the conversation.


granite_grrl


Feb 9, 2011, 7:02 PM
Post #140 of 147 (1980 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14696

     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)  
 

camhead wrote:
drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.

I'm not either.

technically, nobody is original there, except the chossmarmots. They really got butthurt about the invasion of the Californians back in the day. Diversity! Melting Pot! E pluribus unum! A nation of immigrants!
It probably wouldn't have been so bad if we hadn't been on vacation sporadic internet access at the time.

But it was what it was.


dr_feelgood


Feb 9, 2011, 7:45 PM
Post #141 of 147 (1967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25720

     Re: [blondgecko] 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)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

Any chance you got one of those stencils just hanging around? I'd love to borrow it for a minute.


dr_feelgood


Feb 9, 2011, 7:48 PM
Post #142 of 147 (1965 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25720

     Re: [imnotclever] 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)  
 

imnotclever wrote:
sungam wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
airscape wrote:
camhead wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.

I would imagine that scummunity is not the part of the site that generates those ever coveted "unique hits" you keep talking. 90% of the posts in scummunity are by the same people and soapbox can be a rather repulsive place at times. So, are you posting habits comparable to those of the BETers, no. Are they similar, yes.

And again, the SPCI is one of the more friendly and welcoming places in all of scummunity and we regularly gather new posters that stick around for awhile. Combine that fact with the number of lukers we have and I think you could make a pretty good case for the SPCI being one of this sites greatest assets. I think some kind of award, or even honorary status is in order.

We've been over this before.

You guys are the Little SPCI Achievers, disadvantaged users without the means for the necessary means to succeed in the BET. Proud we are of all of you.

You are making me/everyone want to post in the BET, it seems the only way I can call myself Elite.

I shall start promptly.

no it isn't.

do not.
Remember when I did so then doc feel good started spamming long ass posts in the SPCI, and you guys laffed?

Haha.

Oh yeah, then I did the exact same thing in BET and you guys cried.

Haha.

Oh yeah, and then a mod told me to stop or I'd be banned?

Haha.

Oh yeah, great modding.
Hah, then INC posted that quote from War and Peace and I was like "damn, that's some good writing" and went to the library to get it. Good book.

Thanks, INC!

Twas doc that posted pages of war and peace, I only posted the part of the Duel between you and Stymingersfink, where you killed him!

But doc was threatened with the ban as well for the mass text postings.

Wouldn't be the first time


dr_feelgood


Feb 9, 2011, 7:51 PM
Post #143 of 147 (1964 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25720

     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)  
 

camhead wrote:
drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.

I'm not either.

technically, nobody is original there, except the chossmarmots. They really got butthurt about the invasion of the Californians back in the day. Diversity! Melting Pot! E pluribus unum! A nation of immigrants!

Page 6, Cockbag!


snoopy138


Feb 9, 2011, 8:05 PM
Post #144 of 147 (1949 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28717

     Re: [dr_feelgood] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

dr_feelgood wrote:
camhead wrote:
drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.

I'm not either.

technically, nobody is original there, except the chossmarmots. They really got butthurt about the invasion of the Californians back in the day. Diversity! Melting Pot! E pluribus unum! A nation of immigrants!

Page 6, Cockbag!

kamhed is an idiot. I was somewhere in the first 100 pages.


meatbomz


Feb 10, 2011, 9:03 AM
Post #145 of 147 (1906 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

     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 (0 ratings)  
 

snoopy138 wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
camhead wrote:
drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.

I'm not either.

technically, nobody is original there, except the chossmarmots. They really got butthurt about the invasion of the Californians back in the day. Diversity! Melting Pot! E pluribus unum! A nation of immigrants!

Page 6, Cockbag!

kamhed is an idiot. I was somewhere in the first 100 pages.


I was circa 1400. Marking the beginning of the Glory Days.


snoopy138


Feb 10, 2011, 9:13 AM
Post #146 of 147 (1896 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28717

     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)  
 

meatbomz wrote:
snoopy138 wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
camhead wrote:
drivel wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
I quickly joined the Mass Climbers thread which was basically the original BET thread with a slightly different vibe but basically the same principle.

For the record, actually, no, the principle of BET is not "basically the same" as the Mass Climbers thread. Here are a few key aspects I can think of that differ.

The Mass Climbers thread is/was:

1 - Totally inclusive, and actively welcoming of new posters (unless they wanted to grid-bolt all the routes in Quincy Quarries, lol)

2 - First and foremost a method for organizing climbing outings.

3 - Way off topic stuff was actually discouraged. From the OP:

In reply to:
The primary purpose of this thread is to organize climbing with each other. Secondary is to share beta on the climbs of the region, and encourage each other in our progress. Third, of course, is social. It's hard enough for those of us who do have valid contributions to stay on track here. So if you do have something valid to add, please step up. If not please step out.

4 - I can think of a few posters who seemed to mostly join rc.com to post in the MC thread. I'd even go so far as to say that for folks in the region, the Mass Climbers thread was a nice entrance to rc.com: A way to get local beta, meet some folks, learn a little about climbing, and then start playing in the other forums outside of the Mass Climbers thread.

Four ways in which the MCs thread is/was pretty radically different than the BET threads.

GO

I said it had a different vibe. It is still at heart a social thread. Mass climbers was threatened to get shut down since it was in a Partner forum if it didn't stay on topic.

You are mis-remembering. It *was* shut down. And it always was beta/get-together/partner oriented, more than it was social. Right back to the beginning.

As for BET having meetups, I can't speak to that - I wouldn't know. I think I've looked at a half a dozen posts there in however many years it's been going on. Remember, the thread(s) are explicitly hostile to anyone who wants to visit.

GO

It does help if you climb with some of the folks in there. Like i said before. everyone except INC has climbed with a half dozen or so of the folks in there. Kaboom even made a chart. it was amazing.

and people do periodically join. maybe half? of who posts there regularly now is original. i'm not. 'biner's not. bombz is not. jake is not.

I'm not either.

technically, nobody is original there, except the chossmarmots. They really got butthurt about the invasion of the Californians back in the day. Diversity! Melting Pot! E pluribus unum! A nation of immigrants!

Page 6, Cockbag!

kamhed is an idiot. I was somewhere in the first 100 pages.


I was circa 1400. Marking the beginning of the Glory Days.

yes, this is inkerect.


ddt


Feb 10, 2011, 12:20 PM
Post #147 of 147 (1872 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

     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 (0 ratings)  
 

Locking this thread... not contributing anything to Suggestions and Feedback anymore.

DDT


Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$76.46 (10% off)
$17.55 (10% off)
$16.16 (10% off)
$238.46 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook