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

Premier Sponsor:

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


beetlebug


Feb 6, 2011, 10:30 AM
Post #51 of 173 (4783 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

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 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
beetlebug wrote:
jt512 wrote:
... scientists or mathemeticians...

What are two groups generly known for their pronounced lack of social skills, condescending behavior and overinflated egos.

Really? That's odd. The scientists and mathematicians I know are the nicest people I've ever met. Just don't try to bullshit them.

Jay


Guess you're the exception to the rule then.


Partner macherry


Feb 6, 2011, 10:53 AM
Post #52 of 173 (4777 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15806

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)  
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke.",

do nothing for me.


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 11:15 AM
Post #53 of 173 (4769 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [macherry] 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)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 6, 2011, 11:17 AM)


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 6, 2011, 11:42 AM
Post #54 of 173 (4762 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9629

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

Thanks, again.

My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

Jay

Jay,
thank you for posting this. It actually does impart some insight into your posts. I don't always disagree when you tell somebody they are wrong, however, I disagree many times with the manner in which you do it and I'm not alone. While I am not a fan of some of your unprovoked attacks against me, I do take offense to the attacks on others. And they do exist. Plain and simple.

I'll offer this olive branch. You say that the mods ignore blatant unprovoked attacks against you while you are held to a higher standard. You soften your posting style and we'll do our part to make sure that fair is fair. I'm not saying you have to sugar coat anything or coddle anybody. What I am saying is that you may debate what is said, but not attack the person saying it. We've all thought "what a fucking idiot" when we read certain posts, the difference is we don't always actually say it! Instead, state why they are wrong. Give examples.That's healthy debate and more than welcome. But I also think you know that you aren't going to sway everybody's opinion to that of your own, which is where you usually tend to get personal.

It's not a secret that you and I don't like each other. Not on the site and not IRL. That's fine. We don't have to. You do your part and I'll do mine. Fairly.

Agreed?


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 1:38 PM
Post #55 of 173 (4742 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

Thanks, again.

My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

Jay

Jay,
thank you for posting this. It actually does impart some insight into your posts. I don't always disagree when you tell somebody they are wrong, however, I disagree many times with the manner in which you do it and I'm not alone. While I am not a fan of some of your unprovoked attacks against me, I do take offense to the attacks on others. And they do exist. Plain and simple.

I'll offer this olive branch. You say that the mods ignore blatant unprovoked attacks against you while you are held to a higher standard. You soften your posting style and we'll do our part to make sure that fair is fair. I'm not saying you have to sugar coat anything or coddle anybody. What I am saying is that you may debate what is said, but not attack the person saying it. We've all thought "what a fucking idiot" when we read certain posts, the difference is we don't always actually say it! Instead, state why they are wrong. Give examples.That's healthy debate and more than welcome. But I also think you know that you aren't going to sway everybody's opinion to that of your own, which is where you usually tend to get personal.

It's not a secret that you and I don't like each other. Not on the site and not IRL. That's fine. We don't have to. You do your part and I'll do mine. Fairly.

Agreed?

Agreed, with the caveat that I still think that many times when I'm just speaking plainly it is incorrectly and inappropriately interpreted as a personal attack.

Although I think that your moderation style is too authority oriented, I have no idea how you could have gotten an impression that I don't like you IRL—and, for the record, it's not true.

Jay


Partner macherry


Feb 6, 2011, 4:33 PM
Post #56 of 173 (4716 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15806

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 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 5:11 PM
Post #57 of 173 (4707 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [macherry] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I think you are being overly sensitive, but okay "total joke" was an exaggeration. As I said in another post, that there are moderators (quite possibly the minority) who are active and do a good job, and I even said that you were in that group.

I would think that it would be obvious why a moderator should not be allowed to (or even want to) hide their online status. When a user needs to get in touch with a moderator, he has to know which moderators are actually online.

Maybe I don't understand why some moderators habitually hide their online status. The impression the practice gives me, though, is that they don't take their responsibility to users seriously enough even to allow users to know when they are available to moderate.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 6, 2011, 5:17 PM)


notapplicable


Feb 6, 2011, 5:35 PM
Post #58 of 173 (4694 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17768

Re: [macherry] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

It doesn't effect your ability to moderate posts that YOU see but it does prevent other users from calling something to the attention of the mod(s) who are online and able to efficiently address an issue. It really does not make any sense at all that a moderator would hide their online status.


notapplicable


Feb 6, 2011, 5:53 PM
Post #59 of 173 (4683 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17768

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)  
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

While I think that insults about peoples height are kind of like insults about people being gay, in that they aren't really insults and serve only to highlight how much of an immature asshole the insulter is, I will ignore that in favor of taking this thread waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy of topic.

I just noticed your sig line and it reminded me of a T-shirt I have. Thought you might find it amusing.




dr_feelgood


Feb 6, 2011, 6:59 PM
Post #60 of 173 (4661 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25856

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 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I think you are being overly sensitive, but okay "total joke" was an exaggeration. As I said in another post, that there are moderators (quite possibly the minority) who are active and do a good job, and I even said that you were in that group.

I would think that it would be obvious why a moderator should not be allowed to (or even want to) hide their online status. When a user needs to get in touch with a moderator, he has to know which moderators are actually online.

Maybe I don't understand why some moderators habitually hide their online status. The impression the practice gives me, though, is that they don't take their responsibility to users seriously enough even to allow users to know when they are available to moderate.

Jay

backpedal


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 7:47 PM
Post #61 of 173 (4650 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

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 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I think you are being overly sensitive, but okay "total joke" was an exaggeration. As I said in another post, that there are moderators (quite possibly the minority) who are active and do a good job, and I even said that you were in that group.

I would think that it would be obvious why a moderator should not be allowed to (or even want to) hide their online status. When a user needs to get in touch with a moderator, he has to know which moderators are actually online.

Maybe I don't understand why some moderators habitually hide their online status. The impression the practice gives me, though, is that they don't take their responsibility to users seriously enough even to allow users to know when they are available to moderate.

Jay

backpedal

That word does not mean what you think it means.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 6, 2011, 9:20 PM
Post #62 of 173 (4631 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9629

Re: [macherry] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status. Mostly because I have nothing to hide. I will also say that I don't moderate user behavior frequently. This isn't because I don't care or I don't know any better, it's because, I think that for the most part the users self moderate quite well and I believe that adults should know how to behave and how not to. I do get proven wrong on a daily basis in this area, however. I step in when the staff consensus says that something needs to be moderated, I feel something is REALLY out of line, or in this case, I said that I would post the moderator decision because Phil was coordinating flood cleanup in his area. Or in normal cases when something needs to be moved or a spammer dealt with. There are a couple of others that tend to moderate the same way. I hope that this helps to dispel the perception that some of the moderators just don't care.

I've been a moderator around here longer than any of them with the exception of Phil. I've survived the wild west with little to no moderation, heavy handed moderation, and the current level of moderation. I believe that a happy medium tends to be the best policy. But I also see that a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.


caughtinside


Feb 6, 2011, 9:23 PM
Post #63 of 173 (4626 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30423

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status. Mostly because I have nothing to hide. I will also say that I don't moderate user behavior frequently. This isn't because I don't care or I don't know any better, it's because, I think that for the most part the users self moderate quite well and I believe that adults should know how to behave and how not to. I do get proven wrong on a daily basis in this area, however. I step in when the staff consensus says that something needs to be moderated, I feel something is REALLY out of line, or in this case, I said that I would post the moderator decision because Phil was coordinating flood cleanup in his area. Or in normal cases when something needs to be moved or a spammer dealt with. There are a couple of others that tend to moderate the same way. I hope that this helps to dispel the perception that some of the moderators just don't care.

I've been a moderator around here longer than any of them with the exception of Phil. I've survived the wild west with little to no moderation, heavy handed moderation, and the current level of moderation. I believe that a happy medium tends to be the best policy. But I also see that a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

This site needs a new BANZing reign of terror!


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 9:46 PM
Post #64 of 173 (4619 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status.

Kelly, although you might not have been aware of it, your online status is currently hidden (click to enlarge).


Attachments: status.jpg (25.9 KB)


notapplicable


Feb 6, 2011, 10:01 PM
Post #65 of 173 (4609 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17768

Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status. Mostly because I have nothing to hide. I will also say that I don't moderate user behavior frequently. This isn't because I don't care or I don't know any better, it's because, I think that for the most part the users self moderate quite well and I believe that adults should know how to behave and how not to. I do get proven wrong on a daily basis in this area, however. I step in when the staff consensus says that something needs to be moderated, I feel something is REALLY out of line, or in this case, I said that I would post the moderator decision because Phil was coordinating flood cleanup in his area. Or in normal cases when something needs to be moved or a spammer dealt with. There are a couple of others that tend to moderate the same way. I hope that this helps to dispel the perception that some of the moderators just don't care.

I've been a moderator around here longer than any of them with the exception of Phil. I've survived the wild west with little to no moderation, heavy handed moderation, and the current level of moderation. I believe that a happy medium tends to be the best policy. But I also see that a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

This site needs a new BANZing reign of terror!

I agree and I suggest you start with CI.


guangzhou


Feb 6, 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #66 of 173 (4603 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

I don't take things to personally on the internet.

In reply to:
Thanks, again.

No worries

In reply to:
My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

What I disagree with most of the itme is the tone that the message seem to imply. They do tend to be hostile, but I can look past that.

As for bluntness, I have never been accuse of beating around the bush. Actually, five years in the Army, a few year teaching middle school math, and a lifetime of climbing, I tend to get to the point. I am more direct face to face than online, but that's because I can guage people's reactions better.

For all I know, the person arguing about climbing with me online is a 300 pound bedridden guy who has never even seen a cliff, much less climbed one.

In reply to:
By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I have to admit, I have read some of your post and understood them to be attacks too. (Not about me, but attacks non-the-less)

In reply to:
I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

I could careless how many post someone has, I try to look at the content. In most cases, those with highest post counts seems the most lost to me.

I remember having a conversation here with a guy about bolting, on-lead versus rappel. He kept talking about my lack of ethics and not understand the true history of climbing, risk, and likes.

By chance, I met this guy face to face while climbing in China. He was there on business and someone gave him my contact info. I didn't know he was on this site and he didn't know who I was int he real world.

On the way tot he cliff, he let it slip that he had never climbed outdoors, and how excited he was to finally get to climb real rock. Again, I had no idea it was the same guy. I was bit worried about his lack of outdoor experience because we were headed into village china climbing scene.

When we arrived at the cliff, i lead ashort, maybe 120ft pitch of 5.6 climb on gear. When he got up to the belay, I hauled up the drill and added a two bolt belay for the rap. He said nothing.

Seeing he was a computant belayer, I jumped on a face I had looked at before. On lead, I placed one bolt about 80ft up, could handle the risk any more, most of my placement were same RPs to that point. At about 11ft, I placed a gear belay, not great gear, hauled up the drill and placed two bolts. On the way down, I added bolts to make it a 5.11 sport route instead of 5.11x. he didn't say anything and top=roped, sport of the route.

A couple weeks later, he attacked me, Guangzhou,l not eman for the ethics of rap bolting. He mentioned having climbed out Guangzhou and I found out this guy who was pissed off at my rap-bolting techniques was the same guy who was scared top-roping my route. When I told him I was the guy he climbed with in Southern China, he left the site and I have not seen him since.

I mention this only because you actually don't know who you are actually talking to on this site. I don't take things personally here or in person. SOme people like me and what I do, other hate me and what I do. To be honest, I could care less either way. I do my thing and if you don't like it, avoid me is my attitude. If I don;t like you, I'll avoid you too.

In reply to:
Jay

Again, I hope we can have a F2F one day, I think you'd be more interesting in person.

A middle School Math teacher in Asia
Eman


beetlebug


Feb 6, 2011, 10:46 PM
Post #67 of 173 (4593 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

Just so we're clear, just how many warnings does it take to get to the center of this tootsie roll pop? Seriously, most everyone hates the guy (for good reason), he has a long history of abusing other users _AND_ the volunteer staff (which should be compounded by the fact he apparently had been a mod at one point and should know better).... The value of keeping him around is.... ? Seriously, what special knowledge does Jt512 possess that makes him worth keeping around? 99% of his posts are either condescending or attack other users, so where's the value?

My suggestion, before going back into lurk mode, is to institute a high maintenance user policy like lots if other sites are doing and make an example of Jt512. Seriously, he doesn't pull this shit anywhere else, only on RC. Why he gets away with it is beyond me.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Feb 7, 2011, 12:52 AM
Post #68 of 173 (4575 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [beetlebug] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

beetlebug wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

Just so we're clear, just how many warnings does it take to get to the center of this tootsie roll pop? Seriously, most everyone hates the guy (for good reason), he has a long history of abusing other users _AND_ the volunteer staff (which should be compounded by the fact he apparently had been a mod at one point and should know better).... The value of keeping him around is.... ? Seriously, what special knowledge does Jt512 possess that makes him worth keeping around? 99% of his posts are either condescending or attack other users, so where's the value?

My suggestion, before going back into lurk mode, is to institute a high maintenance user policy like lots if other sites are doing and make an example of Jt512. Seriously, he doesn't pull this shit anywhere else, only on RC. Why he gets away with it is beyond me.

I can't argue against any points you have made. Yes, we the mods and management have allowed this situation to develop and exist. We have now drawn a line in the sand and will not tolerate any sort of uncivil behaviour from this day forward. We are way beyond wanting to put up with what we have done so in the past.


dr_feelgood


Feb 7, 2011, 6:23 AM
Post #69 of 173 (4538 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25856

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
beetlebug wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

Just so we're clear, just how many warnings does it take to get to the center of this tootsie roll pop? Seriously, most everyone hates the guy (for good reason), he has a long history of abusing other users _AND_ the volunteer staff (which should be compounded by the fact he apparently had been a mod at one point and should know better).... The value of keeping him around is.... ? Seriously, what special knowledge does Jt512 possess that makes him worth keeping around? 99% of his posts are either condescending or attack other users, so where's the value?

My suggestion, before going back into lurk mode, is to institute a high maintenance user policy like lots if other sites are doing and make an example of Jt512. Seriously, he doesn't pull this shit anywhere else, only on RC. Why he gets away with it is beyond me.

I can't argue against any points you have made. Yes, we the mods and management have allowed this situation to develop and exist. We have now drawn a line in the sand and will not tolerate any sort of uncivil behaviour from this day forward. We are way beyond wanting to put up with what we have done so in the past.

I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude.


airscape


Feb 7, 2011, 6:40 AM
Post #70 of 173 (4527 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

Unless of course they are not lurkers and users with multiple accounts, which is IMO a far greater transgression than mere sarcastic and condisending comments. Casting anonymous bricks is week.


beetlebug


Feb 7, 2011, 6:50 AM
Post #71 of 173 (4515 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

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 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

airscape wrote:
I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

What value do you see in participating in flamefests and "what color rope should I get" threads? What little I have to say is better spent on other climbing forums, where not only are the people nicer to one another, but the discussions actually go somewhere.


airscape


Feb 7, 2011, 7:04 AM
Post #72 of 173 (4508 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

Re: [beetlebug] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

beetlebug wrote:
airscape wrote:
I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

What value do you see in participating in flamefests and "what color rope should I get" threads? What little I have to say is better spent on other climbing forums, where not only are the people nicer to one another, but the discussions actually go somewhere.

If it is as bleak as you say, then why do you read anything here at all?


edge


Feb 7, 2011, 7:19 AM
Post #73 of 173 (4499 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9118

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

There has been a lot of productive conversation in this thread, and I for one am thankful for that. In fact, this forum has probably been underused for
it's intended purpose as stated: "The forum to make suggestions, give feedback and discuss any features on Rockclimbing.com. Report defects separately in the forum dedicated for it. "

To hit on a few highlights, I guess I see the complaint about Mods hiding their online status as a non-issue. I have never hidden my status intentionally, and am on RC every half hour or so throughout the workday from 7 AM EST until 6 PM. However, going back over all of my PMs from calendar year 2010, I received exactly 2 messages from users concerning site moderation; both were alerts to spammers, which I dealt with and responded to the sender with a quick, "Thanks, got him."

Mods have the same job restrictions as other users, and sometimes operate from multiple computers where they may not neccesarily have the time to log in just to check the site, prefering to log in when needed to perform a mod duty. This is not sneaky or devious, just a real world scenario. I would bet that no one here is encouraged by their paying employer to visit the site as often as we do, and that each mod and user weighs the merits of listing their online status and real name against that fact. Fortunately, I am self employed, and so I only disgust myself with the amount of time I waste here.

Further, just because users can't see mod activity, doesn't mean that we do nothing or are lax. In December of 2010, 44 posts were moved to the Recycle Bin, a forum only available to mods. In January of 2011, 23 posts were moved there. Many of these were spammers who were moved before the vast majority of users were even aware of the posts, creating a less cluttered user interface. Other posts moved were blatant attacks and insults which were then brought up for discussion in the Green Room, the mod's exclusive forum. Most of these were followed up by sending a warning to the offender via PM, again all behind the scenes for the average user.

This brings us to the current situation: how much moderation is needed, and in what situations? It is no secret that RC has a bit of a reputation as the Wild West of the climbing forums, and let's face it, that is a rep that a lot of climbers revel in society. On the one hand it makes for lively discussion and activity, so that it can be very entertaining to check in on the latest debate and/or shit show.

On the other hand, the internet is a relatively new vehicle for climber interactions, and it is impossible to judge a posters intentions or demeanor via online posts. The mods as a whole have discussed the level to which we moderate in the Green Room, and by and large have opted to let the users self moderate except in extreme situations as I outlined above.

What I see as the outcome of this thread is that we will again be revisiting this issue. In the past it has been complicated by the site changing hands multiple times, and each new owner has a lot on their plate without trying to overhaul the whole system before settling in and getting a feel for the climate. You can't go back in time and change the ways things have progressed, but you can gather data and input and begin again to chart a new course. Expect a post with new guidelines or rules to appear in the forums in the future once we have analyzed this data and meshed it with the site ownership's intentions.

In the meantime, I will personally be more vigilant in moderating mean spirited or abusive behaviour. Calling a user a "gumby" or "shit for brains" may be meant as a light hearted jab to one, but also may provoke the target of said name calling to retaliate in kind or leave the site altogether, where our goal is to make RC.com a venue for all users to exchange ideas, information, and perhaps, if their not careful, to learn something.

Instead of name calling, it is much more productive to tell someone else that you disagree with their opinion and back that up with a persuasive but civil argument.

So, if the mods see a post that we consider "over the top" in this regard, we may excersize our judgement and hide the post, move it to recycling, or send it to the Green Room for discussion. Anyone who quotes that post "for posterity" may also have their post hidden to eliminate all remnants of it. If you don't want your post to disappear, then don't cross the lines of common decency.

Enough for now; discuss.

Loran Smith
Engineer, artist, washed up climber, and (gulp) mod.


beetlebug


Feb 7, 2011, 8:04 AM
Post #74 of 173 (4482 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

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 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

airscape wrote:
beetlebug wrote:
airscape wrote:
I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

What value do you see in participating in flamefests and "what color rope should I get" threads? What little I have to say is better spent on other climbing forums, where not only are the people nicer to one another, but the discussions actually go somewhere.

If it is as bleak as you say, then why do you read anything here at all?

Because there's still a small amount of good info amongst the noise. I just choose not to participate in the noise, hence lurking rather than contributing. Should RC come around to becoming the sort of place that actually encourages discussion you'll get a lot more of us lurkers out of lurk mode.

That's about all I have to say on the subject, so back to lurking.


k.l.k


Feb 7, 2011, 10:55 AM
Post #75 of 173 (4459 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
. . . a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

That's the problem with the lack of editorial oversight.

The "user base" consists overwhelmingly of n00bs and career incompetents whose primary use of the site is to post bad and frequently dangerous advice to other n00bs and career incompetents on topics in which they have neither understanding nor experience. Since this site also sits on one of the nicer bits of internet real estate, it has earned a high-profile brand (given how small the market niche is), but that brand is for idiocy and incompetence.

At the moment, the only corrective to that sad state of affairs, is the fear that one's anonymous avatar may get publicly ridiculed by Jay or Curt.

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

I appreciate the misery of being a mod, but I am not a fan of the idea that policy here should be driven by the libidinal impulses of the loudest sheep. That's not the only model for a successful site.

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

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook