|
philbox
Moderator
May 20, 2005, 4:50 AM
Post #1 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Ladies and gentlemen we shall have a short intermission whilst I clean this thread up. Any personal attacks and outright threatening behaviour shall be moved out of this thread and archived in the mods and eds forum.
It is not my intention to cripple this conversation, far be it, it is important to resolve these sorts of issues but we all need to do so in a civil manner.
Stand by. It will be back sometime on Sunday. Sorry for the interruption. Meanwhile have a good think about what can be done to resolve this extremely distasteful circumstance. I hate boltchoppers too.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
May 20, 2005, 4:59 AM
Post #2 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: You should note that it is the policy of rc.com to reduce the amount of moderation from what was occuring in the past.
Out of curiousity: is there also a policy toward making the moderation that does occur a little more consistent? The type of personal attacks in that thread (which weren't really that bad---this is the internet, after all) are common in (uncensored) threads all over this site.
Just let people use the filtering feature to get rid of that stuff (if they actually want to---which they probably don't, because over-moderation sucks).
:roll:
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
May 20, 2005, 5:09 AM
Post #3 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: Just let people use the filtering feature to get rid of that stuff (if they actually want to---which they probably don't, because over-moderation sucks). :roll:
I completely agree, however when people make death threats and discuss how to carry out same then we must act particularly when it relates to a thread which is discussing cliffs. The possible ramifications of doing nothing may be that the authoritahs close access. How do we know whether the land managers at that cliff and others around the country and indeed the world are in fact monitoring this conversation.
Yes, less moderation is far far better. I cannot say though that the site will ever be unmoderated. We pick up on very few threads. This just happens to be one of them unfortunately. It will be discussed in the mods and eds forum and one of two things may happen. It will return unchanged or the offensive posts will be cut and then the thread will come back.
In the meantime, I`m going climbing for the whole weekend. It`s Friday arvo here and I`m about to punch the clock and head down to my favourite crack climbing mecca. As I said, sorry for the interruption.
|
|
|
|
|
shear
May 20, 2005, 3:21 PM
Post #4 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 350
|
cool...had no intentions of causing such an uproar...i was simply informing of the situation at mormon.
but thanks anyways... 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 20, 2005, 3:29 PM
Post #5 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I think you're wrong, in the extreme, to moderate this thread Phil. This issue is 15 years in the making and the thread itself is mild comparded to real world events it debates. There are passionate feelings about it because it evokes passionate feelings 'in the field' as it were. By pruning out these emotions you in effect are force feeding prozac to unwilling participants.
I urge you to rethink this... let the water boil.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
May 20, 2005, 3:51 PM
Post #6 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
I didn't get to see how the thread "evolved" after I left work yesterday. It seemed that some people managed to self police the thread. Maybe it got out of line, but I tend to agree with dingus on this one. It should be left as is.
|
|
|
|
|
shear
May 20, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #7 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 350
|
i honestly didnt think it was bad at all...actually a really civil mannered thread with well thought out responses.
but i mean, i cant do a thing about it now...i just wish it were back...brought up tons of great points.
|
|
|
|
|
anson
May 20, 2005, 8:40 PM
Post #8 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 658
|
I am able to rate posts today, and was planning to thumbs-up a number of cogent, interesting posts that appeared in that thread. Ah well, I guess all of those posts will make it back eventually in the emasculated thread.
-aB
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 20, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #9 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I do have a number of CT back channels trying to get me Ken's unlisted number or to have him contact me to at least find out if it was him and what the deal was if it was...will keep you posted...
|
|
|
|
|
mburke225
May 21, 2005, 3:17 AM
Post #10 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 119
|
I thought the thread had some very interesting arguments on both sides. I will be sad to see it edited. Here's one more vote to let the rest of the community see a glimpse of the climbing scene in the North East.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 21, 2005, 9:02 PM
Post #11 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: I do have a number of CT back channels trying to get me Ken's unlisted number or to have him contact me to at least find out if it was him and what the deal was if it was...will keep you posted...
Attempting to contact Ken or discuss the issue with him is absurd. Its seems that we agree that Ken is not a rational person, who won't be able to engage in a rational discussion. If nothing else his track recod shows this and has, as you mentioned, resulted in his being banned from some climbing areas.
More to the point though, if some one goes to a a public park, and destroies all the picknick tables with a chain saw. You don't sit them down and ask "what was the philosophical reason for your actions?" or "why did you do it?" If they are caught, they are charged with the destruction of property, vandalism or something of the sort. Ken is vandal and no amount of discussion or low brow climbing pusdo-philosophy changes that.
In the long run it matters little if he chopped Mormon Hollow because he's chopped so many other places. If someone goes and poops on the hood of his car for chopping Mormon Hollow and he didn't actually do it, so what? Over time he has more than earned having his car pooped on. Besides, car poopers ain't rational either so it comes down to a battle of wits between unarmed cambatants.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 21, 2005, 9:48 PM
Post #12 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: I do have a number of CT back channels trying to get me Ken's unlisted number or to have him contact me to at least find out if it was him and what the deal was if it was...will keep you posted... Attempting to contact Ken or discuss the issue with him is absurd. Its seems that we agree that Ken is not a rational person, who won't be able to engage in a rational discussion.
We'll have to disagree here. I never said I thought Ken wasn't rational, I did say I wasn't defending his actions/decisions/choices nor do I think they are justified. But, if it is Ken, then you're choices are a) rebolt and forget it and hope whatever/whoever is pissing him off stops; b) figure out what it is that triggered this incident; c) spiral down with him. It's your choice, I'm out West dealing with access issues here now, but willing to [briefly] act as an uninvolved go between. If you guys would rather have another bolt war, that's fine with me - have at it...
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 22, 2005, 1:08 AM
Post #13 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: We'll have to disagree here. I never said I thought Ken wasn't rational,
But when I said he was a sociopath, you responded by writing "I never said Ken wasn't a sociopath."
Unless you believe in rational sociopathology you can't have it both ways. Technically speaking it may be possible to be somewhat rational and somewhat sociopathic. That could be what makes them so cunning and dangerous to others.
Me? I'd rather believe in something else; such as undiscovered, endless, 80 meter tall, slightly overhanging, velvety-blue-limestone 20 minutes from my house.
Can a mod really say a topic is off limits or can we just continue to keep spraying on the new thread he started to say that they old thread was dead?
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
May 22, 2005, 1:15 AM
Post #14 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Although i feel that healyj is a bit of a right winger himself i do belive that his offer to attempt to contact terry nichols (pun intended) and act as a moderator is a good thing and no harm can come of it. perhaps some good may come of it?
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
May 22, 2005, 1:52 AM
Post #15 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
Just for a different perspective I thought I should add something here....
[quote="fluxus"]
In reply to: Attempting to contact Ken or discuss the issue with him is absurd. Its seems that we agree that Ken is not a rational person, who won't be able to engage in a rational discussion. If nothing else his track recod shows this and has, as you mentioned, resulted in his being banned from some climbing areas.
Funny thing about the first thread was that nobody was certain it was Ken's doing; however, the sport climbing lynch mob was already to beat him with their quickdraw's....Why not find out his side of the story?
In reply to: More to the point though, if some one goes to a a public park, and destroies all the picknick tables with a chain saw. You don't sit them down and ask "what was the philosophical reason for your actions?" or "why did you do it?" If they are caught, they are charged with the destruction of property, vandalism or something of the sort. Ken is vandal and no amount of discussion or low brow climbing pusdo-philosophy changes that.
Removing bolts as destruction of property and vandalism? It used to be that rapp bolting was viewed that way. Nobody can argue that leaving the cliff boltless and in its natural state shows the least amount of human damage to the cliff and therefore by adding bolts you are changing the cliff. Was this approved by the landowners? No, then that may be considered vandalism! Just think about it, not from a climbers perpsective, but from a naturalists perspective. So, if done correctly, removing routes may be returning the cliff to its natural state...
In reply to: In the long run it matters little if he chopped Mormon Hollow because he's chopped so many other places. If someone goes and poops on the hood of his car for chopping Mormon Hollow and he didn't actually do it, so what? Over time he has more than earned having his car pooped on. Besides, car poopers ain't rational either so it comes down to a battle of wits between unarmed cambatants.
Lastly, fluxus says, hey, Ken may not be guilty this time, but we know he did this stuff before so lets get him! Sounds pretty rational to me, and while we are at it Healyje knows him lets get him and I am offering an opposing viewpoint, string me up, christ get all the trad climbers and you won't have this problem! And your post was'nt rational either....
fluxus, you have written some of the most impressive things about training and movement I have ever read. Time to work on your weakness...perspective and the ability to breathe deep before you fire those absurd posts!
|
|
|
|
|
jcpace
May 22, 2005, 4:42 AM
Post #16 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 155
|
comments like "this is the internet afterall" don't really make any sense. So if it's the internet, it's ok to slander and be a jerk? One thing that has really disappointed me about this forum is the stark contrast it has in reference to my real-life encounters with other climbers. Sure there have been some dicks, but overall, I've been really proud of the positive community that climbers share with each other. This forum is far from being like that. It's nothing like walking around the campground at Hidden Valley and talking to all the different climbers like I do. Why is that? No really? Why are we so different on here? I don't mean to sound like some hippie, but what about the community?
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
May 22, 2005, 4:55 AM
Post #17 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Can a mod really say a topic is off limits ...
Apparently.
And declaring the particular topic in question off limits is pretty extreme (whilst simultaneously stating in another thread that there is a "policy" of reducing excessive moderation!).
In reply to: I completely agree, however when people make death threats and discuss how to carry out same then we must act particularly when it relates to a thread which is discussing cliffs.
This is bogus; a) I didn't see any serious death threats (e.g., is bvb ever serious?) in that thread (unless one was posted on the last few messages before it was removed---but hey, we can't tell because you nuked it), b) it's not (or shouldn't be) your responsibility to prevent people from posting death threats anyway, and if it bothers someone they can either killfile the individual or (if appropriate) contact law enforcement, and c) this is the internet, if you take it too seriously you will go insane.
I would suggest that you (and any other of the "mods" here) think about the latter for a while. Not only will the quality of this site be significantly higher with less of this sort of moderation, but it will also do much to save your own personal sanity, since you are obviously taking this crap way too seriously. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
May 22, 2005, 5:04 AM
Post #18 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: comments like "this is the internet afterall" don't really make any sense.
I would wager this is because you are relatively new to internet culture.
In reply to: So if it's the internet, it's ok to slander and be a jerk?
Not exactly. It's an entirely impersonal, text-based medium---it's important to realize that the rules of usual face-to-face social interaction do not apply.
In reply to: One thing that has really disappointed me about this forum is the stark contrast it has in reference to my real-life encounters with other climbers. Sure there have been some dicks, but overall, I've been really proud of the positive community that climbers share with each other.
You do realize that this thread was started because someone in our "positive community" vandalized a bunch of established routes, right?
Just why exactly are you supporting the elimination of discussion on the topic? Would you prefer everyone put on a happy face and read another shoe thread instead?
Did you even read the thread? (I'd link it for you so you could see for yourself that it wasn't that bad. But...well...it's been removed and stuff).
:roll:
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccragsman
May 22, 2005, 5:27 AM
Post #19 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 778
|
I'm still trying to figure out if this is a forum about bolt chopping.
Or a Flame Ken forum. As far as I've been able to tell, it's a flame Ken forum. But I've yet to hear one shred of evidence showing Ken did it.
And if Ken did it, I'll bet the ones who are flaming him are the guilty ones
or know who the guilty one is who maybe went in and did something in his neck of the woods. I've always noticed guilty parties like to keep the flames on someone else to keep the flames away from themselves..
Imo, I'm not against bolting when needed, but needless bolting sucks.
And I sure have seen enough of that. Out here in Ca. I have seen some things sport bolters have done to rocks that are way worse than bolt chopping.
So, Flame on, and be carefull the wind don't start blowing the opposite direction.
cosmiccragsman
|
|
|
|
|
jcpace
May 22, 2005, 5:50 AM
Post #20 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Thanks Fracture for asking some good questions. I agree with you to a point.
In reply to: I would wager this is because you are relatively new to internet culture.
In reply to: It's (the internet) an entirely impersonal, text-based medium---it's important to realize that the rules of usual face-to-face social interaction do not apply.
In reply to: You do realize that this thread was started because someone in our "positive community" vandalized a bunch of established routes, right?
In reply to: Just why exactly are you supporting the elimination of discussion on the topic? Would you prefer everyone put on a happy face and read another shoe thread instead?
In reply to: Did you even read the thread? |
|
|
|
|
bvb
May 22, 2005, 5:56 AM
Post #21 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: (e.g., is bvb ever serious?)
babe, only thing i'm serious about is women, whisky, and widecracks. everything else is just fun, games, and killin' time between climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
jcpace
May 22, 2005, 6:23 AM
Post #22 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 155
|
[quote="bvb"babe, only thing i'm serious about is women, whisky, and widecracks. everything else is just fun, games, and killin' time between climbs.
I'm confused. Is that you like widecracks on women?
|
|
|
|
|
jstan
May 22, 2005, 11:15 PM
Post #23 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 37
|
I am new to the internet also. The last posts on this topic have allowed me to understand more, something that is always both important and difficult. One poster was kind enough to say right up front posting was a way to kill time between climbs. I had never considered this possibility. So there really may be no commonality as to why various posters on any thread are present. In practical terms perhaps the answer is already in our hands. Should each of us simply filter out those posters from whom we do not wish to hear? I would hate to do that. There is no way to tell when someone who has been using the site for amusement in the past, suddenly faces a serious problem and wishes to post for very different reasons. But now they cannot be heard. They have been permanently and digitally dissed. They are nonpersons. Even should they have a carefully thought out discussion of an important issue, they do not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 22, 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #24 of 35
(9664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
Golsen,
thanks for the complement, but I think if you had a better historical grasp of the situation you would not think I am such a nut on this topic.
There have been numerous attempts to engage folks like Ken in Dialogue going back many years, they never amounted to anything. Largely due to amazing leves of hostility coming from Ken and the likes, they just don't have a track record of rationality or constructive engagment.
Also I was the focal point of a great deal of hostility, threats and slander during the so called bolting wars, and at the time my efforts were mainly to engage the comunity in a well informed dialogue which the Gunks comunity wanted no part of. The basic message from trad climbers was shut up and go away, although they were less nice about it.
A great deal of this came from people who had no understanding of the history, philosophy and actions of the climbers they heald up as shining examples. At a certain point I let my frustration and anger out for anyone to see. I'm not all that proud of it but it was the only reply I could muster to the self rightous, ignorant, hypocracy of the trad comunity.
In reply to: Removing bolts as destruction of property and vandalism? It used to be that rapp bolting was viewed that way. Nobody can argue that leaving the cliff boltless and in its natural state shows the least amount of human damage to the cliff and therefore by adding bolts you are changing the cliff. Was this approved by the landowners? No, then that may be considered vandalism! Just think about it, not from a climbers perpsective, but from a naturalists perspective. So, if done correctly, removing routes may be returning the cliff to its natural state...
You won't get an argument from me on this one. It is the case that bolting is STILL considered vandalism in some locations. There is not legal bolting in national forerests for example, so the context does matter, but I have seen the work done by Ken and others at areas where bolting was an allowed, and they leave everything in place but in a mangled condition. Further, they sometimes miss when swinging those hammers around, leaving nice gashes on the rock around the bolts. in short they leave a bigger mess than they found.
Personally, I am the ONLY climber I know of who has ever removed hangars, backed the bolts deeper into the rock and puttyed over the holes so that no sign of the previous bolt could be seen. As far as I know not one of the self rightous-in-your-face-pissed-as-hell LNT crowd actually puts their money where their very big mouths are in this respect.
In reply to: Lastly, fluxus says, hey, Ken may not be guilty this time, but we know he did this stuff before so lets get him!
read my post again, it was clearly not a call to action. I assumed that the humorous tone I intended would come though, I was after all, writing about "car poopers" but maybe I'm just not funny, except for my looks.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
May 23, 2005, 2:43 AM
Post #25 of 35
(9652 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
fluxus,
your previous involvement with issues like that explains the frustration that came through. I agree that anyone who simply bashes the bolts is vandalizing the rock which to me is right up there with chipping. Yes indeed "poop" I suppose should have been funny 8^) .
If you lived in SLC and climbed at the Hellgate you may have climbed some routes I did that were almost chopped by one of America's finest alpinists, so I get the frustration...In fact he did remove the first bolt on a route and the anchors on a climb....
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
