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

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."

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?

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


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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

This site needs a new BANZing reign of terror!

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

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 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?

. . . 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.