mattp

I think you have your history wrong there, Greg. It was Cavey who complained about "Strong Arm Tactics" when there was Seattleite resistence to an Eastside event. If I recall correctly, there had been a regular rotation of an east side event once a month, and attendance had been low over there, and there was a discussion about putting off the Eastside event for a week or two.

So maybe I should have called you a buttnugget and said fuck off if you don't like it? Just kidding, Ray.

At least Fern tried to say what she thought about my actions on friday, and the business of moderating in general. Oh, sorry. This is supposed to be a "spray" interlude.

It IS a frightening prospect indeed.

Fern - You offer a good suggestion in pointing out how Courtenay manages the fitness forum. But first, let me respond to your more pointed remarks. You initially stated that I had erased posts in a capricious matter and then you stated that you think I misrepresented the content of the exchange that I erased. How else would you expect me to interpret that other than to suggest that you thought you knew what was erased and that you thought that what was originally there was OK? Now you say that you weren't actually following the thread closely and you don't really know what was there, and that is the point (at this point): I did not save a copy of it so we cannot go over every post and debate each single erasure. I have tried to explain my reasoning, and I described the general sequence of the discussion and the kind of language that was used in the posts I deleted. Again, in reference to your complaint that I had been capricious, following the statement that I had misrepresented the situation, I assumed that you were rejecting my explanation. Pardon me if I a misunderstand you, but I read your last post to suggest that you may still be unable to discern my reasoning. I honestly don't know what else to offer. Maybe we just don't agree. As I said, you make a useful suggestion when you cite Courtenay's management of the Fitness forum for how it has worked to wait a week or two before cleaning up threads that have been sprayed on. The merit I see in this approach would be that it would be less controversial because, as you put it, the sprayers would by then have moved on. Indeed, I have discussed with other moderators the idea of doing exactly that with the Chair Peak thread. The downside is that the spray remains there for that period of time in which people who seek to use trip reports in planning their next trip (those people who are generally the least likely to want to have to wade through a bunch of spray) are most likely to want to read those trip reports. Meanwhile, I either have to lock the thread or allow the spray to accumulate and I fear that if I am going to wade through three or four pages of BS and try to sort out which posts are worthy and which are not, it will take quite a bit of time. On Friday I thought I'd try a different approach – to fire a warning shot in hopes of staving off four pages of crap. Maybe I did so in a clumsy manner, but I have a hard time thinking that there would not have followed at least a page of spray had I not done what I did.

Dru- That was some of the guys who woke up in the dirt the morning after my bachelor party.

Dru- I am hesitant to reply directly to your inquiry because, as ChucK noted, some of those clever sprayers who frequent this site will take any rule and find a way to pervert it into a license to spray, but here goes. First of all, I have already noted that the introduction for the "Route Reports" sections all say "post your reports and ask questions about routes." I have also stated that, as I see it, "this does not suggest the discussions cannot be funny or entertaining and there is no rule that says you cannot be irreverent or that you cannot argue with something that is posted there." If you were to call somebody on their chest-beating in a trip report, it would probably fall into one of those grey areas where I think the decision as to how to respond will have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Such a response to a chest-beat should be done with (as you put it) "panache and style" and, in my opinion, you have proven pretty good at calling B.S. and mocking people without being mean spirited about it. So as long as you didn't call the poor sap a complete loser or use some offensive term like buttnugget, I'd probably leave it be -- but if it was Bumbly Climber's first post on the board or if I had some other reason to be sympathetic, I might consider posting some response in their defense. If you flamed the poor bastard, I'd be inclined to cut your post but there might be other options -- I might wait and see who else jumped in line behind you and the sad fact (in my opinion) is that what would most likely happen is that somebody else would jump in and call the guy a buttnugget or something. The point is that the "Route Reports" forum is not supposed to be lifeless but it IS supposed to be a forum where all climbers can post their trip reports and share or seek information on the routes -- not just those climbers who are thick skinned or who you or I think are "cool." Clear as mud?

This censorship business is going to be hard work if in addition to cleaning up the Chair Peak thread I also have to go back and cut the crap out of the Mt. Persis thread and somebody else is going to have to go after the Personal Web Pages. I think I'll go have lunch instead.

Sorry you feel neglected, Muff. Jon has said before, and I agree, that the route reports section is intended to be a resource that can be used by people who don't want to have to wade through copious amounts of gratuitous insult and off-topic B.S. If Jon and Tim set it up as you suggest, those who entertain themselves with spray would be free to do so in that forum and history has shown that pretty soon the entire forum would be taken over by spray any time the weather is bad. I should also tell you that there have been private discussions about how maybe even allowing any follow-up discussion should be eliminated from the "route reports" forum so that if you had questions or comments, you would have to fire off a personal message or start a separate thread in a different forum. I am not in favor of this, but it would certainly eliminate the need for there to be much moderating in that forum.

Clear as mud?

Ray - I agree with you that that thread in the "personal web pages" section is B.S. and should be shipped to spray. As to whether you can slam anybody in any forum other than route reports, I think you will find that there are broader tolerances in some areas of the board than others, but even in spray there is a limit. Jon has said repeatedly that certain kinds of gay bashing, talk of sex with children, and threats of violence will not be allowed anywhere on the board. I am sure there are some other highly offensive things you could think of that would similarly not be allowed. I have tried to set forth what I see as a clarification of the simple introductory defnition for the "route reports" forums and To The Top has set forth a similar clarification, in the "Access" thread that Sisu started. That thread was originally on the Climber's Board, so that may give you some guidance as to what may be allowed in the Climber's Board forum.

Fern- I will acknowledge -- for at least the third time -- that I may have misunderstood the discussion on Friday and that I may not have skillfully drawn the line. Had I saved the initial posts that I cut, though, I believe you would see that Caveman did in fact tell Dru to fuck off and the word Buttnugget or a similar insult was used, and that there were a couple of replies in kind. You apparently don't find those kinds of posts inappropriate in that forum, and I have tried in this thread to discuss that very point. I have also tried to explain what I sought to do, and apparently you reject that explanation. Rather than repeat how unfair I was, might you explain how you think I might not misstep so badly again? Do you think there should be any moderation in the route reports forum? Are you in the all-or-nothing camp or do you think there should be some flexibility? If there is to be moderation of any posts, how should it be done?-Matt

Greg- I've tried that "take it to spray" message several times. It was respected about one out of four attempts. Jon has said he is committed to continuing to provide a place for spray, but that he also wants to see some fundamental rules of restraint practiced in some of the forums: keep spray out of the route reports, keep flames out of the newbies forum, etc. I agree that erasing posts SUCKS. How about shutting down threads? Does that SUCK too? Nobody has yet discussed my statement that the definitions of what are to be inserted into route report threads appear pretty clear. What do you think -- is it clear enough what is to be tolerated there? Do we need a detailed outline of what words constitute intolerable insults, kind of like the 7 forbidden words on radio? Do we need to have a description of just exactly how many lines of banter unrelated to the route discussion are acceptable? Should we take either an all-or-nothing appraoch to moderating the board?

Ray- Do you mean that if I am going to clean up a route report, it should be all or nothing? I understand that some (including you) think that I did not draw the line correctly on Friday, but I am trying to figure out how there might be some flexibility here -- and I think that one or two posts off track, or even four short posts off track are OK, but if it looks like it is going to deterioriate to a whole page of B.S. that is unrelated to the route being discussed, and particularly if that includes calling each other asseyes and buttnuggets, it is time to step in.

That's my point, Ray: what do you think would be "doing it right?" Freeclimb suggests there should be no moderating of any kind. Do you think there is room for any moderating on any portion of this board, and if there is, how might it be "done right?"

Freeclimb- Are you saying that it is "geeky" to expect a discussion of something that is apparently important to lots of people around here, and that there should be no attempt to police the discussion in any way?

I would like to note that out of 108 replies on this thread, less than 25 of them are oriented even obliquely toward a response to my request for feedback. In light of the fact that so many of you complain so loudly whenever anything is moderated on this board, and other's of you complain about the spray, I am sure more of you have some thoughts on this.

Ray- At grave risk of having you call me a disingenuous so-and-so, I'll say that I'm totally with you on the Alpental Valley ice and the Frenchmen's Coulee chosspile. Sure, I can have fun at either place, but lots of people seem to think those are the only places to go ice or rock climbing in the State! It's OK by me, though, if climbers want to go where it is convenient.

Sisu, I don't run this site, and I don't even moderate this forum, but I don't see any reason why this would get "chopped." You cut and pasted a part of a post from another board and then gave credit by providing the link. You didn't slam anybody personally and your post not only makes sense but it has to do with climbing. Who is to complain about that? I don't know what the Access Fund does or doesn't do in relation to this issue but I agree that climbers could probably benefit by building a coalition with other user groups. When I see rants about off-road vehicals or snowmobiles on Mount Baker or irresponsible hunters or whatever it is, I often think that we probably have more in common with those user groups than we recognize.

What is with all this hostility dircted at Newstips? Sure, the media sucks, and most of what you read in the paper or see on TV news is either sensationalism, government propaganda, or some kind of commercial promotion, and it is always full of errors. But what the hell is wrong with Newstips or anyone else asking a climbing-related question here on cc.com? If we were more willing to talk to the media, we might be able to get our message accross about such issues as the real cost of rescue operations vs. searches for lost children in Mount Raininer National Park.

TLG, I think I can probably help you out there. No funny stuff. I promise.

I've often said that I think I could live just about anywhere -- even Jackson Mississippi -- if I had a job that I liked and even a small group of friends that I liked. Without both, you'll probably be unhappy there but if the job is cool and you think there will be enough of a community that you can relate to, you should at least consider it. Mr. K is right that you'll almost certainly climb less but there are other things in life and you won't have to stay forever, will you?

Like: Friendly almost alpine peaks, great scenery, and predictable weather make for enjoyable climbing. Don't like: Long periods of rainy weather and black flies, sometimes simultaneously.

Toast - A poll would offer some measure of opinion, but I'd wonder exactly how to interpret it. I think the polls get answered mostly by the die-hard sprayers and if I am correct, this would skew the result. Certainly, the poll would be answered by the people who are on-line at work and probably would not be answered by those who check in once a month to run a search on "chair peak" in hopes of finding some crucial bit of beta. Also, I don't know if a poll would or should change the editorial policy of the board. Jon and Tim set up the site with different forums and intentionally gave them different ground-rules. So what would we do if the poll came out 100% in favor of taking an "anything goes" approach in the route reports? Or, conversely, what if a poll came out with a result 100% in favor of disallowing all spray from any forum? More useful, I think, is to discuss the issues and see if there are any new ideas or see if we can better define what the ground rules are. There is no moderator's handbook and while Jon or I or somebody else may sound rather strident about the proper place of spray, here is your chance to influence things.

Cavey, Actually, there were some personal attacks. They may have been mild by your standards, but when you tell someone to fuck off and call them a dipshit or whatever, that is personal and it is an attack. Dru may be correct, however, that I may have misinterpreted the exchange and censorship wasn't justified in that particular case. That's why I started this discussion.