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:

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


jakedatc


Feb 9, 2011, 12:52 PM
Post #127 of 147 (1848 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 (1847 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 (1837 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7029

     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 (1831 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 (1825 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

     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 (1817 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

     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 (1799 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

     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 (1793 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 (1782 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

     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 (1767 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 (1739 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14578

     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 (1734 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14578

     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 (1732 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14578

     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 (1729 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14578

     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 (1716 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25628

     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 (1714 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25628

     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 (1713 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25628

     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 (1698 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28654

     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 (1655 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7029

     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 (1645 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28654

     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 (1621 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

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

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook