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

Premier Sponsor:

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


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2011, 12:27 PM
Post #106 of 173 (2575 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

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

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (perhaps unlike me) actually have interesting and worthwhile climbing content to contribute.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Feb 8, 2011, 12:34 PM)


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 12:37 PM
Post #107 of 173 (2565 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20748

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

cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.


carabiner96


Feb 8, 2011, 12:43 PM
Post #108 of 173 (2558 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12551

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

k.l.k wrote:
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.

Stalk much?


drivel


Feb 8, 2011, 12:46 PM
Post #109 of 173 (2551 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

Re: [carabiner96] 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

carabiner96 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
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.

Stalk much?

klk makes the occasionally cameo, oh skimbitch.


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2011, 12:50 PM
Post #110 of 173 (2543 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

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 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

People like them, or those three in particular? If the former, then yes.

cracklover wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
2) when the site was considered slightly more civil, there were more informed sources willing to post. Many of them owners of gear companies and professional climbers. Most of them have now been run off the site by the "noise".

There has been a bit of back and forth about who ran off these people who have the potential to provide a much higher signal to noise ratio than the rest of us. Was it the incessant noob yammering? Was it the nasty posts?

I know and climb with several people who fit in the category above, who left around the same time, and I've talked to them about why they drifted away.

I have two people I've spoken to. Both are active climbers, and are very good. One has a technical role in a climbing-gear specific company, and the other was pivotal in the development of one of the most popular trad climbing destinations in the US.

I miss both of their voices in the dialogue here on rc.com, and they are just two of many.

A_B and others, please don't take this personally. If you go back and re-read my post, I think you'll see I'm not primarily talking about what you think I am.

GO


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 1:01 PM
Post #111 of 173 (2520 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

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

camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

my thought on that is that their highly experienced answers get quickly drowned out by noobs answering incorrectly and the noobs asking do not know the difference. It is probably not worth their time to write well thought out responses only for someone to ignore it.

why should Rich write a great long post about anchor technique only to have some gumby that took a TR lesson once go Yea well any 3 pieces and a cordo you're good to go! noob goes ah that is way easier to read and apply than what Rich said so i'll go with that.


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 1:13 PM
Post #112 of 173 (2507 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20748

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

jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

my thought on that is that their highly experienced answers get quickly drowned out by noobs answering incorrectly and the noobs asking do not know the difference. It is probably not worth their time to write well thought out responses only for someone to ignore it.

why should Rich write a great long post about anchor technique only to have some gumby that took a TR lesson once go Yea well any 3 pieces and a cordo you're good to go! noob goes ah that is way easier to read and apply than what Rich said so i'll go with that.

Rich was (and still is, when he posts) a great example of the star system working. If you go search his posts, almost all of them got very high reviews.

Not that someone like him would care about stars, but perhaps if there was some way of making it more obvious that ALL of his contributions are valuable, more of the noise would get ignored. Making posts searchable by rating, having a list of toprated users, some sort of "gold star on the forehead" icon under someone's avatar– any of these things would really help.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 1:17 PM
Post #113 of 173 (2505 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 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (perhaps unlike me) actually have interesting and worthwhile climbing content to contribute.

GO

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

The climbing world doesn't turn fast enough to provide a constant stream of fresh topics to discuss. And despite Majid's beliefs, we don't need to beat ourselves senseless over every possible rescue scenario that will never happen. With the exception of injuries and accidents, and reports of whatever pebble the V18 cockroaches are currently crushing, you could sum up the year of new developments in climbing in an annual flyer that you could read cover to cover during your next bowel movement.

This place is nothing more than a chat forum of people with a loosely connected common interest who are looking for some entertainment. It's nothing more, I'm sorry if you thought it was.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 1:20 PM
Post #114 of 173 (2499 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

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

camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

my thought on that is that their highly experienced answers get quickly drowned out by noobs answering incorrectly and the noobs asking do not know the difference. It is probably not worth their time to write well thought out responses only for someone to ignore it.

why should Rich write a great long post about anchor technique only to have some gumby that took a TR lesson once go Yea well any 3 pieces and a cordo you're good to go! noob goes ah that is way easier to read and apply than what Rich said so i'll go with that.

Rich was (and still is, when he posts) a great example of the star system working. If you go search his posts, almost all of them got very high reviews.

Not that someone like him would care about stars, but perhaps if there was some way of making it more obvious that ALL of his contributions are valuable, more of the noise would get ignored. Making posts searchable by rating, having a list of toprated users, some sort of "gold star on the forehead" icon under someone's avatar– any of these things would really help.
Other forums have a "reputation" gauge. Very similar to what you're mentioning. Not sure I see that going so well here though...

But maybe?


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 1:21 PM
Post #115 of 173 (2490 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20748

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

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

URL tags, NOOB!


drivel


Feb 8, 2011, 1:24 PM
Post #116 of 173 (2481 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

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

camhead wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

URL tags, NOOB!

i'm NOT clicking that.


drivel


Feb 8, 2011, 1:26 PM
Post #117 of 173 (2474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

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)  
Can't Post

also, somebody "recycled" mah glories. Mad


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 1:30 PM
Post #118 of 173 (2455 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20748

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)  
Can't Post

drivel wrote:
camhead wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

URL tags, NOOB!

i'm NOT clicking that.

aw, come on, you know you wanna. just pretend it's an ice cream cone.


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2011, 1:34 PM
Post #119 of 173 (2447 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

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

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (perhaps unlike me) actually have interesting and worthwhile climbing content to contribute.

GO

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

The climbing world doesn't turn fast enough to provide a constant stream of fresh topics to discuss. And despite Majid's beliefs, we don't need to beat ourselves senseless over every possible rescue scenario that will never happen. With the exception of injuries and accidents, and reports of whatever pebble the V18 cockroaches are currently crushing, you could sum up the year of new developments in climbing in an annual flyer that you could read cover to cover during your next bowel movement.

This place is nothing more than a chat forum of people with a loosely connected common interest who are looking for some entertainment. It's nothing more, I'm sorry if you thought it was.

You misunderstand completely.

1 - I think the forum is exactly what you think it is: a place for people with a common interest to talk about whatever interests them.

2 - Those folks who you think have no place on the internet have been posting interesting and entertaining content on the internet (and some of them before that on usenet). And so far as I can tell most of 'em still are posting interesting content. Just - not here.

Of course people should discuss whatever they want to discuss. The issue (for the nth time) is what the environment feels like to posters here, whether that's driving away any content the owners/managers would like to see stay here, and what, if anything, that means about the rules of engagement or enforcement of those rules.

GO


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 7:40 PM
Post #120 of 173 (2483 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

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

jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

my thought on that is that their highly experienced answers get quickly drowned out by noobs answering incorrectly and the noobs asking do not know the difference. It is probably not worth their time to write well thought out responses only for someone to ignore it.

why should Rich write a great long post about anchor technique only to have some gumby that took a TR lesson once go Yea well any 3 pieces and a cordo you're good to go! noob goes ah that is way easier to read and apply than what Rich said so i'll go with that.

Rich gets a lot of respect over here. On mp.com, not so much. It's kinda funny to watch the know-it-alls over there flame him. There is a tad more civility over there, but the technical level of the discussion is much higher here. Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Jay


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:04 PM
Post #121 of 173 (2394 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

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:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 10:05 PM
Post #122 of 173 (2393 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

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

k.l.k wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.

So, what site is?

Jay


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #123 of 173 (2392 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

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:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

it's tempting to nominate k.l.k and tripperjim

Jay

You are a sick man.

But I second the Preble solution.


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:07 PM
Post #124 of 173 (2392 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

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

camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

According to the poll of the user base, it's because they're all afraid of Jay.

So they fled to the protective womb of Supertopo.


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:14 PM
Post #125 of 173 (2574 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

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)  
Can't Post

drivel wrote:
skimbitch.

not even that.

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