mattp

Dru- You make a couple of valid points. I may well have misunderstood your exchange with Cavey and the initial erasure may not have been necessary because there wasn't anything that was horribly offensive. On the other hand, it would have been perfectly easy for you, Cavey or anyone else to resume that exchange. If you wanted to debate whether or not Bob Cotter is a dork or whether you or Cavey are qualified to comment about him, I would not have had a problem with a brief diversion in that thread as long as it didn't contain the usual gratuitous insults. Better yet, in my view, would have been to take that argument to another thread. Your second point, "why bother," is also valid. Perhaps as in the case of the prior Chair Peak thread we could just let things run their course and when a thread deteriorates we should be happy that there was two or three pages of good information before the discussion headed south. I have a fantasy that there could be one section of this board where people stay relatively close to the topic and refrain from flaming each other, but perhaps I'm just dreaming. Minx - You are right. There is some useful information along with the garbage in that Chair Peak thread. I haven't looked at it closely, but I think that it will be difficult to cut out the garbage and leave the "useful information" without leaving what will read as a scattered thread that is hard to follow. Maybe that would be OK, though. We have had some discussion of this in the "Moderators" forum, and it is difficult to figure out what's always going to work. I think DFA is right, that it has to be done on a "case-by-case basis." I started this thread in hopes of getting some feedback. Thanks to those who care to address the topic.

Summary/Introduction to Diatribe On Friday, I erased several posts from the Colonial/Big Four thread. I did it three times. I did it because the discussion there had deteriorated into a hostile exchange of insults and banter that may belong in "Spray" but certainly doesn't belong in a discussion of a climb. This stimulated an angry response from Captain Caveman and some there was some discussion of what might be a proper way to moderate this board in the "Spray" thread titled "Utter Trash." I thought it a good idea to start a new discussion, directly addressing what might be the proper rules of engagement in the "Route Reports" section, and my conclusion is this: "Route Reports" should be focused on actual outings, or things like conditions or the history of a route, or what kind of gear is needed for a particular climb; if you want to digress into an argument over somebody's character or something unrelated to climbing, and particularly if that digression is going to continue for more than a post or two, take it to another section of the board. What was I trying to do? Dru had angered Captain Caveman and Cavey called Dru some kind of pussy and the discussion was no longer about anything related to a route report. There was an exchange of about six or eight posts consisting primarily of trash-talk, so I erased those posts in an effort to take the discussion back to where I thought it had gone astray. I think only two or maybe three of these posts were Cavey's posts, and the abusive rhetoric had actually been traded three ways -- some of the posts I erased were attacking Caveman, I believe that Chocolate or somebody had also gotten into the act, and there was the usual irrelevant quip from Trask. I had thought about erasing Dru's remarks that arguably started the whole thing but I decided that it was not those remarks but Cavey's response that really took the discussion astray. In response to my editing, Cavey got angry and resumed his attack on Dru as well as calling Alex a prick or something because he assumed that Alex had been the one that erased the posts. I then erased about four or five more posts, including Cavey's retorts along with a few responses and a post of my own that suggested the argument be taken to "Spray." Again, I hoped to take the discussion back to a point from which Cavey could defend the person Dru had insulted and then allow the discussion to veer back toward a discussion of Big Four or Colonial. I thought it appropriate to leave a hint of the prior diversion behind as a reminder that I would be supervising the discussion and so that any reader could guess what had taken place. Cavey came back with the flame thrower a third time. I erased one or two posts, and shut it down. On the question of fairness: Cavey complained that I was "unfair" and Fern commented that the erasures seemed "capricious." To this I can only say that I tried to be fair and that I was simply trying to cut out the insulting rhetoric and any post that wouldn't make sense without that insulting rhetoric, and leave the rest. As noted already, I erased posts by several people, and some of what I erased included folks calling Caveman names. I erased my own suggestion to Dru that the "valuable" material I had erased could easily be recreated in "Spray" or elsewhere on the board because I figured this should be obvious. I left a complaint about what I had done to the thread because I thought maybe it was significant to leave a reference to the whole debacle even though I wanted to more or less erase the debacle itself. Was I "unfair" or "capricious?" Perhaps. But I can tell you that I tried to do the best that I could to steer the discussion back on track with the least amount of interference I thought appropriate. In talking about what is proper for a discussion on the board we are also talking about what is proper for a moderator to do and I ask everyone to consider whether they think they could make everybody happy. When Jon asked me if I wanted to be a moderator, my first response was "why should I take that on that headache? After all, without being a moderator I can post anything I want and read whatever I want and I really don't have to take any responsibility for it. I knew that if I tried to actually moderate anything on the board, I would be attacked personally for doing so. I also knew that I would inevitably be criticized for either doing too much or too little, because some people on this board just want information whereas others prefer what they see as a "lively" discussion based in quips and jabs. When I looked at Friday's argument, following not more than two weeks after I had shut down a route reports thread that had strayed off track for three pages, I had to decide whether to simply shut it down, which would prevent any further exchange of information, or just to remove a couple of posts and allow the discussion to continue. In this context, removal seemed to me less obtrusive than shutting it down but the downside was that this might be seen as targeting a specific poster or two. So I braced myself and tried to delete with as even a hand as I could. My point here is that being a moderator is almost a no-win endeavor, but I feel that this board is a significant resource for the NW climbing community and I am proud to contribute to it. I know this sounds a little defensive, and perhaps a tad bit whiny, but I ask everyone to think about whether they could moderate this board, in any real sense of the word "moderate," without subjecting themselves to criticism and attack. Should I do it again? I am now contemplating cleaning up another thread, the "chair peak" thread I closed about two weeks ago. Any of you who are concerned about fairness should go back and read it. Maybe the entire thread should be moved to "Spray" but my thinking is that if someone wants to use this board as a resource for information about Chair Peak, they should be able to find some information in a route report without having to wade through a bunch of irrelevant banter and, viewed in this light, the first half of that thread is of value but the second is probably not. What are the rules? Look at the "Main Index" page on cc.com. The introduction for the "Route Reports" sections all say "post your reports and ask questions about routes." 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. There is also no rule against providing or seeking some good information. "Post your reports and ask questions about routes" is all the direction that is given and it really should be all that is needed. Compare it to the "Climber's Board" introduction which says "connect with fellow NW climbers here to ask questions, or post issues that are important to the NW climbing" or the introduction to "Spray" which says "here you'll find topics on just about anything ... be warned this forum is not for the thin skinned." These aren't detailed guidelines, but it should be clear that "Route Reports" are intended to be narrowly focused discussions about routes or climbing conditions, whereas the "Climber's Board" is intended to be broader in scope and that for full-on flame and irrelevant material you go to "Spray." From where I sit, it's simple: "post your reports and ask questions about routes" is a little narrow, perhaps, because this forum includes discussions of the routes themselves, trail and snow conditions, crowds, gear needed, retreat possibilities, rescue operations, historical information, and things that took place on any given outing. From where I sit, it should be obvious that if you want to dive into personal attacks and calling people dickneck and stuff like that, or if you want to steer the discussion into something completely unrelated to climbing for more than a relatively short digression, you simply move over to the "Spray" section. As to the insulting and disgusting crap, I personally don't think it belongs in Spray either. I mean, c'mon -- how many times do we need to read that somebody needs to take a dump or that they are going to beat you up and go to bed with your mother? But I did not volunteer to moderate the Spray section because I know that many of you find that stuff entertaining. In the route reports section, I think it is reasonable to say "no pointless insults" and "no vulgarity just for vulgarity's sake." Those are two basic standards that guide any civilized discussion anywhere except on the Internet or in junior high school, and I think they are fair standards for one tiny portion of this board. Comments?

Approximately how much snowpack was there at Icicle Creek, the place where you leave the logging road to head up to the basin below the couloir, and at the top?

Good one, Mr. K. How much snowpack was there at Icicle Creek, the place where you leave the logging road to head up to the basin below the couloir, and at the top?

Good one, Mtn. High. That is a somewhat dangerous route and I'm sure it was not in "ideal" condition with our low snowfall totals thus far in the winter of 2002-2003, and although there was not much recent snowfall, it was slightly warm. To be relatively safe on a route like that one, you gotta pick prime conditions, be careful, and move fast, and if that is not happening it is time to retreat! Better to live for another attempt.

I ALWAYS take my ring off when rock-climbing on a real crag. At the gym,I might not. The plastic is less likely to scratch my ring than is real rock, and with all holds being of the crimping or groping variety, the likelihood of catching it on one of those holds is much less than on real rock where even if it is face climbing there are likely to be some holds with recesses into which to stick a finger. Also, my ring is tight enough on my finger that it can be hard to pull off so I might not bother in the gym.

Ray - That was not us on the E. Face. I wonder who it was? Geoff and I circumnavigated Sperry and stomped to the top of Vesper, and the snow conditions were not good for climbing anywhere we went, though it was relatively firm in the basins below the E and N faces of Sperry (in places it was firm enough to walk with some semblence of confidence until the inevitable plunge step, that is). At higher elevations, there was 4-16" soft snow, crusty in places and damn near powder-like in others. We found some rotten ice in one gully, and looked at some steeper terrain that looked climbable and even had some ice, though thin.

Jon - YOU ARE THE MAN. I can check it out easily with my 56k modem that connects at 30k.

I'm sorry, Ray. You guys got into another pointless exchange of insults. I don't think that belongs in a route report thread. Take that action to the spray section.

Michael: I think you should submit an application to the D.E.A. (Darrington Enjoyment Association). We need guys like you.

Is there any truth to the story that somebody once flew some old tires up to the top of Redoubt, set them afire, and that the smoke plume was seen from town which led to there being an announcement that there was an eruption in progress?

Here he is in action:

If you are taking beginners for their initial climbing experience, your trip may look more like this:

Glen - There was an interesting article in the PI this Sunday, about a guy named Gold who had been a leading writer in a conservative think tank but decided to quit because he thinks the conservatives have lost their way. He says he is against the war because he can't see how we are going to solve anything by it. He says that America, as a nation should not be flexing its' military might so much because "you don't get greatness by pusshing people around. You get it by doing great things. " He also says, however, that the "peace movement" does not interest him because the voices against the war all seem to say that the whole mess is OUR fault and the take too much of a "blame America first" approach without voicing any recognition of all the good that we have done for the world. He says that the conservatives, who say they distrust big government, are forgetting their principles when they promote new laws that allow for increased domestic spying. He notes that "old-line" conservatives like Dick Armey have joined up with the ACLU on this issue. I don't know if he's written any books or anything, but you ought to check out that article. I thought I was a liberal but I agreed with just about everything he was quoted there as saying. It was quite interesting.

PLEASE NOTE: Cavey did not punch anyone. In fact, he was freely disseminating up-to-date and completely accurate beta, he was a most pleasant conversationalist and he was, in all respects, the perfectly exemplary pub clubber (he paid his bill). I repeat. He did not punch anyone. Now can you guys leave me alone with the personal messages and calls for a police report?

Dan-wasn't there a boulder there, near and perhaps just above that snag? Maybe I'm imagining the whole thing just like I imagined the topo to match what we saw in the couloir.

Minx - They do it all the time. How do you think the stadium was built or the light-rail proposal stonewalled? It's called politics, mixed with the legal process. Where powerful interests want something done or not done, it really doesn't matter what the people want.

Trask, I couldn't agree with you more that Governor Locke sux but where are you coming from with this one? He is hardly a "tax and spend liberal" and even the republicans commended him for producing a sensible budget that was intended to reign in State spending, didn't they?

Before starting the Caveman Diet, you look like this: After six short weeks, you can look like this: Guaranteed to work!

I gotta say, the air quality WAS better in the Blue Star than it had been in Teddy's the week before. But we started out at a long table where there wasn't room to circulate, and then when we moved to the back room where it was more comfortable they decided that they couldn't adquately supervise us back there and they cut us off (I don't think anybody really looked obviously wasted, but ChucK and I discussed the idea that it was probably based only the pure number of pitchers they had delivered - I could be wrong). But I think ChucK is right: the real issue is that they just aren't really catering to our kind of crowd. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with trying some different style venues once in a while but I wouldn't want to go back to the Blue Star every week.

Actually, he was very nice to her. We even paid our bill and everything, and Cavey was on his best behavior all night. He probably would have even been nice to Allison, had she bothered to show up. But out of the blue, the waitress said "you guys have had a lot of beer and this will be your last pitcher."

Another problem with the Blue Star was that THEY CUT US OFF!!!!! Just because Cavey punched out the waitress. What the ??????

The Mount Margaret area would probably be pretty good because you could snowshoe up to the crest at about 5,000 feet without crossing any avalanche zones and there are some nice lakes up there. However, you may share part of that Rocky Run road system with snowmobilers.

Jack was quite an accomplished climber and he made some good packs, too -- the only packs I have ever seen that had a zipper on the back, a vertical zipper between the pack stays. These were great winter day-climbing or small-overnight packs that allowed you to put the thing down in the snow and rifle through your gear without getting the part that you were next going to put against your back all muddy or snowy. I would not hesitate to believe that Jack could have climbed up, down and sideways all over Big Four, and he might well have done it alone and then thought it not such a big deal as to be worty of reporting.