What should be allowed in a "route report" discuss

[iain]

[Off_White]

Damn Caveman, you broke the run of post coital pure spray with something verging on beta. Nice pic.

[AlpineK]

Maybe I should get a desk job so I can keep up with all this...

[mattp]

According to the sprayers, Mr. K, you can easily just scroll through pages and pages of what you don't want to read and pick out what is important to you.

[AlpineK]

Well yeah except when there are 118 new posts on one subject my eyes start to glaze over

[Cpt.Caveman]

not my photo. taken from mtnphil.com actually not even sure if it's from the right side either

[mattp]

Well yeah except when there are 118 new posts on one subject my eyes start to glaze over

 

If you are interested in the discussion of moderating the route reports forum, most of it is on pages 1 and 2, and 5 through 7. For the spray, simply read three posts in a row anywhere in the discussion and you will be up to speed.

[COL._Von_Spanker]

Does Slush=Snow, cause that's what was up there.

 

Should we moderate spray forums and remove all clmbing content?

[Cpt.Caveman]

Does Slush=Snow, cause that's what was up there.

 

It was? How far up the couloir did you get? Oh wait you didnt. You climbed around the north. Where all the windloaded shit was.

 

It's all speculative. But just below it as sure fine and dandy. Firm as a worm.

[philfort]

I recall that couloir looking like a really nice winter line, but I don't remember looking to see if it was continuous snow top to bottom - it seems like it might be difficult to get into from the bottom - most of it is hidden in the photo. I think this is the "east gully" route in Beckey or something.

[obsydian]

Should we moderate spray forums and remove all clmbing content

Would be a better option then cluttering up the climbing reports with chatter

[Cpt.Caveman]

I recall that couloir looking like a really nice winter line, but I don't remember looking to see if it was continuous snow top to bottom - it seems like it might be difficult to get into from the bottom - most of it is hidden in the photo. I think this is the "east gully" route in Beckey or something.

 

I walked to get vantages of it from all points and was skeptical that it had snow in it all the way up and down. Until that is when I got a nice view from just below. There might be a mixed section but it appeared like it could be avoided to left or right on snow... I would expect finishing the climb after the couloir would be the most difficult. I love being an armchair expert

[allison]

Well yeah except when there are 118 new posts on one subject my eyes start to glaze over

 

Like Alp K., I generally have to do actual work at my job. For those of us lacking desk jobs, it can be challenging to keep up. Of course, I am behind because I was skiing yesterday while you yoiks where spraying at your desks.

 

Hey Matt, I hope you got some useful beta before this whole thread came crashing down.

[Dru]

gee allison, learn to multitask. i do work AND SPRAY AT THE SAME TIME!!!!

[j_b]

keeping non-climbing related topics in spray makes sense. I am not necessarily arguing for keeping all tangents out of climbing related discussions since it is often the natural way people interact but the ceaseless stream of insulting one liner is often not funny and more importantly prevents some from contributing. I think the bottom line is that a climbing board, although centered around the discussion of climbing, can have different functions. Providing a flexible platform for these different needs to be expressed is key but difficult to accomplish (thanks tim and Jon, and moderators for taking your jobs very seriously)

[Alex]

DEAR GOD!

 

A thread that started as a serious discussion that evolved into spray that evolved into....Beta??

 

what is the world coming to?

[Dru]

see what happens to threads you dont moderate

[daisy]

Nobody can moderate me

[sk]

but I can kick your ass

[allthumbs]

and fda can lick yur ass

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Is the Food and Drug Administration involved in that sort of activity, Trash?

[allthumbs]

fubar

demented

asspole

[Matt]

In response to

Poster: mattp

Subject: Re: What should be allowed in a "route report" discuss

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?

 

Good work Mattp! Let's keep cascadeclimbers.com about climbing. No spray in trip reports! This website jumped the shark the day there were more active political threads than climbing threads.

[mattp]

In the interest of truth, justice, and the American way, I should apologize to Fern. I misconstrued her words yesterday because I said she had admitted not following the Big Four/Colonial thread closely on Friday, but what she had actually said was that she had been following the thread but couldn't be sure what was there at the moment that I erased it. I misread her words to suggest that she had not been following the thread very closely. Sorry, Fern.

[Dru]

Actually I dont think Ray insulted me at all. What he did was change his sig file to be something about sexual butt nuggets or whatever. Matt overreacted by reading Rays sig as part of the posts.