TAY Atmosphere

I don't believe the line is as undefinable as you make it out to be. Am I alone in this regard? Anyone? Bueller?

Definitely not alone

It has been spelled out over and over, "debate the issue, not the person".

The fact that someone on the other side of an argument fails to live up to the standard does not justify reciprocal behavior.  It is the responsibility of each of us to call it out (since is often just a misunderstanding), show some maturity, and keep to the topic at hand.  Name calling, bullying and vague put downs just distract from your message and reduce your credibility.  Argue forcefully and coherently, most of us are actually listening to your point.

I am as guilty as anyone, I hope to do better moving forward.

While it is true, the TOS does not mention fairness as a requirement to be provided by management to users, the TOS, is about fairness and respect: it is a set of principles that provides participants with clear guidelines about how to operate in this environment and (hopefully) the implication is that one is guaranteed that the administrator will not arbitrarily or capriciously remove the words of another.

Removing posts that do not violate the terms of service is censorship. Removing or modifying posts that violate the terms of service is not censorship. It is the application of the standards to which the participants agreed.

The contract here is that users will abide by the TOS and administrators will remove posts when, and only when, they are in violation of the TOS. This is the essence of the definition of fairness, to wit:  "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate; just or appropriate in the circumstances."

Terms of USE:
You agree, through your use of Turns All Year Trip Reports, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law.

If the terms of service (use) is unnecessary, too difficult to understand, ignored, unsupported, not enforceable or there is the lack of will to enforce it, then perhaps it should be modified or eliminated. I, for one, think it should stand and be the TAY ethic.

You’re wrong, Chris, it’s absolutely NOT germaine.

Nonetheless, just so the whole story be told, Marcus actually did give some thought to your suggestion at the time that he “out of fairness” go public with the matter and in fact asked me my opinion on the matter. My opinion was then as it is now: “just because you supported the brit on a particular post long before you had anything to do with the management of TAY does not obligate you to support the brit in belittleing and driving off good members. Nor do you have any obligation to explain your past actions to the brit, scotty or anyone else.”

Chris you keep trying to play the “fairness card” and claim that TAY is a republic not a monarchy. But the fact is it is neither. It is a business; a solely owned business owned by one person who may choose to run it in any way he wishes. He has absolutely no obligation to be “Fair” to you or anyone else. Check the Terms of Use; nothing in there about the site, moderators or owners having any obligation to be fair. Probably nothing in the articles of incorporation or by-laws either.

The fact that he started this topic leads me to believe that he truly cares to provide a valuable resource for skiers in an atmosphere that the majority of the current users would prefer. But “fair” is off the table, mate. If you don’t like it go somewhere else and play

wow.... just wow.

I've been discussing this topic (more specifically, this set of inter-related topics) for many years now--on this site and on others. I'd like to make a couple of points.

First, contrary to what was posted above, operating as a moderator was never easy for Charles: it was damned hard work, and not intrinsically satisfying. Charles, to his great credit, established, expanded and ran this site without much payback aside from the satisfaction of contributing tremendously to the backcountry skiing community. We should all be thankful for what he accomplished, whether or not we agreed with the way he set up and ran the site. No one should make the mistake of imagining that it came easy.

Marcus has continued where Charles left off. The site has, as I understand it, been far more trouble than he anticipated when he took it on, and much of this excess of trouble relates to issues of moderation. Marcus is not getting rich doing any of this. He has a life to pursue outside Turns All Year. He is doing this as a favor to the rest of us, individually and in community. We owe him bigtime--again, regardless of our views on this or that style of moderation. Furthermore, anyone who cannot tell that Marcus, like Charles before him, is bending over backwards to be fair in all significant respects might think about paying closer attention.

Marcus, I trust you'll read this and correct me if I'm wrong in any notable respect about any of the above.

The community standards, to which each and every one of us agreed before ever posting here, seem fairly clear to me. They exclude, for example, certain language which I've seen in this thread, as well as certain other posting behaviors which I've seen in increasing abundance elsewhere, in other threads. There are reasons for these standards which, as it happens, I don't care to debate here. Whether you agree with them or not, they are what they are. Like many here, I happen to like them and hope to see them fairly and consistently enforced.

In my view, stating standards and then failing to enforce them with appropriately-scaled consequences is precisely equivalent to stating their opposite. A failure to enforce stated limits says rather efficiently, "I'm telling you these are the rules, but I don't really mean it. Therefore, do as you please with regard to these rules and any others." Small children are very adept at grasping this sort of subtext; they understand immediately that certain grownups make all sorts of pronouncements without really meaning them, and that they are therefore free to disregard those adults. For better or worse, adults are no less sophisticated at deciphering subtexts and responding accordingly. Some adults, along with some children, seem to specialize in pushing limits--trying to find out whether stated standards are real and solid, or just empty words. We've seen a lot of this on Turns All Year.

For this reason, all else aside, I favor stronger moderation....or weaker standards, if that is the community preference (which I gather it is not). I've been fascinated watching Marcus' style of moderation, which clearly has certain advantages and disadvantages over other styles we've seen here (including my own), but in the balance I prefer the results achievable through more aggressive moderation--that is, quick and decisive application of consequences following posts which do not follow stated standards. I believe that the absence of this kind of moderation will at best make the site more and more effort to run (and correspondingly less and less rewarding), while driving off a great many members whose participation I value greatly. As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the driving-off process is already well under way here, and others posting in this thread have confirmed my belief. I hope the process can be stopped.

I post regularly on a number of other internet forums related to other subjects. These forums all feature moderation to enforce conformity with established community standards. The norm in all cases is that violators are first warned, then posts are erased, then members are suspended and finally banned. Banning is remarkably uncommon (except in cases of outright commercial spam) considering the numbers involved: that's because warnings and edited posts are used a lot, and people either behave according to community standards or get frustrated and leave. This style of moderation is generally appreciated by participants who are, after all, self-selected for their adherence to community norms. I patronize these sites because they are generally respectful, supportive and informative.

Of course, the same issues come up on these other sites, and the same arguments are made. Moderation is always fraught with judgment calls and concerns about fairness. That's ok. It'll never be perfect, even for any single one of us--much less for everyone.

I'm pretty sure that's enough out of me.

Mark

wow.... just wow.

My thought as well.

Brace your self for some direct language.
Frankly Ron J, after watching you use Lisa's post in the "smug" thread as an excuse to jump on Scot's, which in turn embolden and encouraged others jump in and gang up, then this post, I have lost any respect I had for your judgement in moderation. So far, I can't see that you are part of the solution, but actually part of the problem.

Marcus has continued where Charles left off.  The site has, as I understand it, been far more trouble than he anticipated when he took it on, and much of this excess of trouble relates to issues of moderation.  Marcus is not getting rich doing any of this.  He has a life to pursue outside Turns All Year.  He is doing this as a favor to the rest of us, individually and in community.  We owe him bigtime--again, regardless of our views on this or that style of moderation. 

I agree that running TAY with one owner and one moderator is too much work and since revenue from TAY is not the issue and it's primarily being done as community service then why not adopt another model?

Make TAY a community owned site either by donation, shares or by creating a Friends of TAY to raise operating revenue similar to FOAC. Transfer ownership, accept resignation of existing moderators, elect a DIVERSE( age, gender, viewpoint and personality) Board of Moderators( at least 6) to share the moderating burden and adopt new Terms of USE and photo and video rules and apply said rules with consistency, no favoritism and cronyism and no exceptions on either TOU or photo/video guidelines.
I happen to agree with you that if rules are applied consistently and WITHOUT exception they are understood .

I will pledge $1,000 for an initial donation to make this happen no strings attached.
The new Board of Moderators can even ban me as their first action and I'll still donate $1,000. I don't want to be a moderator either just for the record.

I think most will agree that TAY is too valuable a resource to remain in private ownership and allow it's owners to run it as they see fit as per RonJ's model.
This is no reflection upon Marcus as I think if it has to be in private ownership then Marcus is probably the most benign.

The junkyard dog personality,ridiculously characterized here recently as merely a misunderstood puppy, is readily contained by admin if it is so inclined - TOS, and all that.  In fact, it must (and has).

What I find offensive, however, is the repeated use of illogical logic.  Faux logic - thinly connected or disconnected assertions, strung together in a failed attempt to prove cause and effect, always with clearly intended negative tone toward an individual or the community.

Marcus, we need new software here, anyway, as a springboard for greater content, and efficient hosting.  Get us one with an 'ignore' button, and you can have my $1000.

What I find offensive, however, is the repeated use of illogical logic.  Faux logic - thinly connected or disconnected assertions, strung together in a failed attempt to prove cause and effect, always with clearly intended negative tone toward an individual or the community.

Thanks David, I think this is more annoying than name calling. Hard to moderate though. Do we have the patience to continually counter faulty logic? Would it help or are only enhancing the button?

Termites.

Termites gnawing on the house.  Finding any trace of bad wood and attacking it to undermine the structure. 

Scotsman shares the shocking fact that Marcus, in moment I am sure he now regrets, once patted PNWBrit on the back for one of his snarky posts.  That was long before Marcus took over TAY. Is this fact germaine to his efforts today in what everybody agrees is a very difficult task? I don't think so.  But it's a tiny piece of dead wood.  A weakness to exploit.

And now Scotsman is proposing that the entire house be torn down and replaced with a new one.  Un.  Be.  Lievable.  And what assurance do we have that if we built this new house the termites would not attack it as well?

Scotsman, I have an alternative suggestion.  Build your own house.  See how that goes for you.  You might create something really worthwhile. Most of us are satisfied with the house we have.

My enormous thanks go to Charles, who built TAY, and to Marcus and Ron J., who have been willing to keep it standing.  I perceive that Ron has found the termite fighting pretty frustrating of late, and I sympathize. 

Termites.

Termites gnawing on the house.  Finding any trace of bad wood and attacking it to undermine the structure. 

Scotsman shares the shocking fact that Marcus, in moment I am sure he now regrets, once patted PNWBrit on the back for one of his snarky posts.  That was long before Marcus took over TAY. Is this fact germaine to his efforts today in what everybody agrees is a very difficult task? I don't think so.  But it's a tiny piece of dead wood.  A weakness to exploit.

And now Scotsman is proposing that the entire house be torn down and replaced with a new one.  Un.  Be.  Lievable.  And what assurance do we have that if we built this new house the termites would not attack it as well?

Scotsman, I have an alternative suggestion.  Build your own house.  See how that goes for you.  You might create something really worthwhile, instead of just dragging things down.  Most of us are satisfied with the house we have.

My enormous thanks go to Charles, who built TAY, and to Marcus and Ron J., who have been willing to keep it standing.  I perceive that Ron has found the termite fighting pretty frustrating of late, and I sympathize. 

Lowell, as I read your posts I find myself thinking that you are contributing to the very problem that you are complaining about by personalizing it. If you don't agree with what Scot's is saying, why not just say that without the color commentary, which just takes it step down the road in the wrong direction?

I think most will agree that TAY is too valuable a resource to remain in private ownership and allow it's owners to run it as they see fit as per RonJ's model.
This is no reflection upon Marcus as I think if it has to be in private ownership then Marcus is probably the most benign.

TAY is too valuable to allow mob rule.

Personally, I think a lot of what makes TAY special is its dictatorial governance and history of  (relatively) strict moderation and enforced civility. I understand that some feel that the strict moderation has been applied unfairly and non-uniformly. I don't doubt that it has, and some folks likely have legitimate beefs. But, as I said above, TAY is still by far my favorite place on the internet. Charles' predilections have always differed substantially from mine (I love more than 3 pictures, name calling, jokes, strong opinions, etc.). But I think it is clear that TAY became what it did b/c Charles enforced his sensibilities instead of just letting the tone be set by the posters.

I also think that the moderation style of TAY does discourage participation by some, as LeeLau alluded to. I am disappointed he has chosen to effectively leave TAY. I don't think he is alone. But ... folks that want a looser discussion forum have several other places to go where the culture is significantly different. I enjoy those places, too. I don't want TAY to turn into one of them. As others have said, letting the majority rule also drives some people off. No tone will satisfy all.

You can't play music in a library and you can't cuss on TAY. What's this difference between these two assertions?

Lowell, as I read your posts I find myself thinking that you are contributing to the very problem that you are complaining about by personalizing it. If you don't agree with what Scot's is saying, why not just say that without the color commentary, which just takes it step down the road in the wrong direction?

You may be right. If the moderators choose to delete any of my posts, especially the last one, I will accept that without complaint.

I see that you now acknowledge we have a problem. That's progress.

You may be right. If the moderators choose to delete any of my posts, especially the last one, I will accept that without complaint.

I see that you now acknowledge we have a problem. That's progress.

You haven't read my earlier posts?
My post above isn't as much an acknowledgement as it's pointing out that you are contributing to a situation that potentially leads to Marcus needing to do something. If you think it crosses the line, or might encourage further dialog that will deteriorate, why not self moderate?

This starts with you, me and everyone else.
Marcus stepping in, should be the last resort.
Civility should not have to be dictated by the mods (best case).

The point that everyone seems to agree upon is that showing personal tolerance, restraint and some good judgement is better than needing Marcus to step in. Progress will be when the community can agree on what they want this to be, or at the very least accepts what it could become if we all just take some personal responsibility for our own actions and how we communicate with others.

MarkHaf - you make some good points in favor of active moderation. Thanks for the history and well reasoned opinions. I believe you're right that moderation will always be fraught with judgment calls and concerns about fairness, and that it will never be perfect (no matter how the panel of moderators is composed). But this is certainly no reason to abandon it.

Micah - you make an important point that there are indeed plenty of other places where folks who want it a little rougher-and-tumbler to go on the web, including a few BC ski oriented ones. So if we lose a few of those folks but gain even more of the folks who shy away from such places, that seems like an OK bargain.

Scotsman - I agree with Lowell. Go ahead and build a different house if you think it will be an improvement. Put some constructive action behind the words. Please don't try to tear this house down first, though. (ETA: I do hope that if I were tying to make Lowell's point, though I'd have found a different way to explain the corrosive impact I see some members' actions are having besides coming across as labelling them as termites)

Speaking of consistency...

I have to say that PNW Brit and Scotty - TAY's favorite scapegoats - are damned good friends of mine and some of my favorite people with whom to ski. They are not mean-spirited bullies and they'd go miles out of their way to help someone in need. What they are - besides being passionate, experienced and skilled (well, Brit anyway - ) skiers - are guys that don't suffer fools gladly (why they let me hang around is an ongoing question in this regard) and have no problem calling bullshit when they think it's deserved. You may not agree with their callouts, but instead of lashing out at them, banning them or deleting their (or others') posts, why not take the time to read between the lines and think about the comments and respond without being defensive.

...well I'm not a friend of RonJ's, don't think I've ever met him in person in fact. I wonder if I happened to ski with his pal Mad_Dog back around '95-ish up at Mazama Ridge but who knows. But I've certainly seen and heard much evidence of his strong contributions to the community of skiers, including donating many pints of blood in the form of leading classes as well as by willingly pulling in any and all newbies who wish to join into his "Paradise All Year" band. The folks I do know who have spent time with him generally speak in similarly positive terms about being with him in person. So if you in fact believe that we should cut Scotsman some slack for what some of us see as counterproductive behavior here on the site because of what some of you know about what he's like in person, I'd suggest you consider doing the same for RonJ. That is, if you think consistent application of principles is important. For my part, I've had a hard time understanding the oft-raised issues a few folks have with Ron - it has struck me as more of a "bad chemistry" sort of thing, but perhaps I've missed key incidents. I know there have been a few cases where I thought his moderation was a bit unnecessarily demeaning to some members, but these were rare and long ago (and in at least one case I let him know my take) - not something that tipped the net package much away from what I see as a very positive contribution to TAY.

Just to put in a vote, I think that Marcus' loosening of the moderation has been a positive. I don't want TAY to be TGR, but I also don't want it to be a cliquey club built not around a common interest (skiing) but a common - and in my opinion narrow -sensibility. It's somewhere in the middle.

I don't think that sensibility is obvious or clear at first, as I believe it's peculiar to the Northwest (a place I love dearly and wouldn't change, BTW, so this is NOT a criticism) and - perhaps - generational as well. That doesn't mean it's wrong or that it shouldn't be the guiding light of this community, but it does require example and instruction. It's nowhere near as simple as "be civil," again, in my opinion.

I'm saddened to see so many asking for more aggressive moderation, particularly from lurkers, but that does seem to be what's being called for. I hope Marcus and others are ready for the even larger amount of effort that entails, at least at first.

My preference is that people make it the site they want by participating in it. Self-moderation not just in tone, but in deed. Splittler's "Favorite places on the way home" thread is a great example.

The life blood of any online community is participation. As someone who values this site tremendously for it's user-created content (TRs, etc.), I'd want moderation to err on the side creating an environment that leads to more content and participation (about skiing). That would mean "favorite places" AND "smuggest participants" stay in my book. Relying on the weather features to draw traffic will be less effective as other sites like CascadeCrud.com and RogueWeather.com (I still prefer TAY's) keep popping up.

I know a lot people in this thread believe that ramping up the moderation will create a more welcoming climate and bring in more users, or perhaps reactivate former posters. I happen to agree with gravitymk when he says that it will drive perhaps just as many away. It's convenient to believe that those driven away are all foul-mouthed jerks you don't want around anyway and can go to TGR or TTips, but I suspect that it's not that simple.

I could also see the possibility that TAY becomes the PNW's EpicSki and some new site becomes its TGR. I don't think the skiing community is quite big enough for that yet, but I'd bet it's getting close.

Good luck, Marcus. It's a very tough and often thankless job, and your efforts are greatly appreciated. TAY is a great site.

Been reading this with great interest as I had a little "run-in" with Scotsman recently here. My approach which was incensed by what I view as selfish, and distasteful remarks about B.C. skiers was not in character for me. My comeback shows I'm not a dick looking to stir stuff up. I did however learn that there are very different belief systems in place across the TAY community. When it came to B.C skiers being a bunch of whiners who deserve to lose their access, should not be in any terrain around Crystal Mtn. because someone doesn't like sharing the Pow, feels that anyone showing up at Crystal and parking there should buck up say $25.00, and wants a lift to the top of East Peak (again, no lift ticket, you don't belong here), I understood this to more than a personality difference. The Mods and I'm sure Lowell know these comments were made and I'm sorry they were. I respect TAY immensely and have much tolerance to throwing some dung around but I would hope the bond of B.C. skiing and why we are all there would prevail over our differences. Being caustic with people just because you can does not make it right and I aplologize to you Scotsman for my previous affront. If there are questions about the authenticity of what I have said, the Mods can go back and verify this. Might be back, might not but to all who enjoy, support, participate, and especially those who make this site possible - Cheers ! And no hard feelings Scotsman, you are entitled to your beliefs, I just don't share them.

(ETA: I do hope that if I were tying to make Lowell's point, though I'd have found a different way to explain the corrosive impact I see some members' actions are having besides coming across as labelling them as termites)

Point taken. It was a bad use of metaphor. I apologize for it.

I'm not suggesting tearing the house down merely changing the ownership structure. Still keep it exactly the same format, name, TOS , board layout but expand the moderator base to include a more diverse section of regular posters and avoid  cliques from forming. The moderator base can act as the board of directors.

Raising funding to operte the site should be absolutley no problem given the esteem that TAY has in the community.
How is that tearing down? Was it torn down when the ownership structure changed from Charles to Marcus. Why would it be torn down if it was changed from Marcus to a non-profit community group?

Many companies, non-profits etc purposely have a wide array of directors to ensure different voices are heard when adopting strategy and determining policy.

Additonally, when threads about moderators or Marcus comes up we are constantly told it's a thankless job, makes no money and we should be grateful. I am glad Marcus took it over from Charles and kept it going . I do agree that in the corporate and legal sense, because TAY is a wholly owned small business, Marcus does have the right to do with it as he see fits, doesn't have to be fair ( although he does a fairly decent job at that with some glaring exceptions   ) and can establish  any rules he wants, and ban anybody he wants and do as he sees fit. He doesn't and as I said in my post, if you'd read it carefully , I think that if it has to be privately owned I'm glad it's Marcus that owns it and not some others on this board.

BUT.. Yes sorry, I think a different model from private ownership IS appropriate for TAY especially given it's community vibe.
You are entitled to disagree.

If somebody other than I had made that suggestion.. you'd proably be discussing it rather than calling the person a termite.
Although It did get a laugh from the analogy and thought it quite funny. You're growing on me Lowell... I admire a good acid tongue.

Being caustic with people just because you can does not make it right and I aplologize to you Scotsman for my previous affront. And no hard feelings Scotsman, you are entitled to your beliefs, I just don't share them.

Thanks, but no apology was required or expected or wanted Rippy . We agree to disagree.

There seems to be lot of pettiness and bickering in this thread, right when we're having the best 2 week stretch of the season. Here's a remedy for whatever ails you:

Step 1: turn off computer and ignore the interwebs
Step 2: go outside and enjoy new snow
Step 3: slay some unicorns and then share the feast

I have been reading the posts on this subject and thought that I would at least register my reply to Marcus' request for feedback especially when I frequently read and occasionally post here.

I vote for anything that would allow more of the wonderful types of trip reports that Hummel and the like submit, if cost allow.

I vote that anyone can post any trip report within the rules even if it is the millionth trip to camp Muir or even the 5th one that weekend.  If anyone is not interested in reading them then don't, but people have as many reasons for posting as there are people.  I also have no issue with short reports that simple state the snow conditions.

I think that in general the tone of discourse is appropriate, though it is clear that there are individuals that rub each other the wrong way.  Not so surprising considering the number of users on the site and the breadth of topics covered.

I think the site is best served being run by a "benevolent dictator".  Committee, not so much.  After all this is supposed to be entertainment and should be a trivial part of any normal persons life.  I don't want to have to have a committee deliberate over every little thing that I do.  It would probably end up as a site that only the committee members actual used and in the end drive the committee member nuts with conflict and rob them of valuable time.  A benevolent dictator can make key decisions most efficiently.  If for some reason he does things poorly or to anyone's dislike there are plenty of alternatives or another site will arise to replace it.

I think that Marcus is doing a fine job.  Be grateful that he has even asked for user input.  It is a balancing act and it would simply be impossible to satisfy either extreme unless he would take it to either extreme, so sorry to say that some people will not want to participate.

I do think that the terms of use should be adhered to or changed to match the level of action with which the moderator will act.  And then the moderator must act on all cases or the terms will mean nothing. I think that they are reasonable as they are.  I recognize that there are grey areas, but unless there are egregious actions to be immediately dealt with, the moderator has the ability to measure his response until the intent of the poster is understood and a post is clarified if need be.  

One grey area is when a topic gets turned into a pissing match between two people.  Often good ideas are exchanged even when hurtful things are written.  Maybe TAY needs a new topic title called PssMtch and then when the topic becomes a fist fight between two or more people Marcus can dump those individuals into that tank and then prevent any of them from contributing further to the original topic thread.  Kind of joking on that one, but it makes me wonder just how much the rest of the community really cares about when a thread goes bad...  

Alan

The problem with the "benevolent dictator as sole business owner" model in a community orientated website is that human nature being human nature, there is always a tendency for the dictator to favor his friends or the people that align with his/her views or increase  his feelings of self-worth.

This is very common in the business world and only today we were speaking with a CEO of a business who had come to the realization that he had surrounded himself with cronies and subordinates who would not tell him when he was making a bad decision or taking the business in the wrong direction or showing bad judgement. He realized he needed a wider and more diversified group of executives not afraid to call him out or disagree with him when plotting strategy and policy for his company.

In an internet website whose sole reason for existence is to promote public input on the wonderful world of BC skiing by trip report, discussion and the sharing of personal experiences and viewpoints, this inherent opportunity for bias is insidious and grows over time. The resulting bias can be totally subconscious and is not malicious but can nevertheless be very harmful to an institution in the long run.

My business comprises four partners with widely different personalities and political/social views ( 2 of the other three are very conservative and they consider me a raging socialist.. which will surprise some) This is not by accident and we  argue and discuss strategy and problems until we reach a consensus and if we can't then we vote on it based upon our share of the company. It helps us avoid calamity and try to make the best decisions for the company and its employees.

The current situation with TAY is too narrow.. you have a sole proprietor and one moderator who has been grandfathered in since the inception both of whom say its a thankless job . My suggestion to make TAY a community based website with a larger group of moderators is a way to increase the diversity of the management. If the Owner doesn't want to do that ,which is entirely his right, he should at least consider "refreshing" the moderator chairs now and again and getting some more to share the thankless burden which would also have the added benefit of assuring a more diversified viewpoint when it comes to matters of policy and enforcing the rules( which will always be present when you consider that anybody with a computer on the whole planet can theoretically post here). Of course this diversification will only occur if he chooses the people carefully and not just based on people that agree with him universally.

I remind you of RonJ's post.
" But the fact is it is neither. It is a business; a solely owned business owned by one person who may choose to run it in any way he wishes. He has absolutely no obligation to be “Fair” to you or anyone else. Check the Terms of Use; nothing in there about the site, moderators or owners having any obligation to be fair. Probably nothing in the articles of incorporation or by-laws either."

I believe that, at times the era of Marcus as owner, operator and moderator has been too hands-off and too friendly. Unlike a democracy or a mob, a single individual is given too much power in this forum to bully, attack, spread rumor and untruths and frankly take this forum as their own pulpit for whatever vitriol they chose to espouse about people, places or subjects. Since Charles has relinquished ownership and control to you, Marcus, I feel that you own the sandbox and may do with it what you please.
If you say “the hell with it” and shut down the website, that is your prerogative. However, that would be a more dignified death than letting one or two people ruin the place for the rest of us by discouraging others from posting. Reading Lowell’s post about his reluctance to post makes me mad. Lowell has contributed a lot to this place and this community, and the majority of it is in trip reports and skiing related information, not in crap in Random tracks or non-backcountry ski related days in the resorts. I value community and I put that over the freedom to be an “ass”.
I know that a vocal minority has inspired a silent majority to cease participation, thereby denigrating the sense of community and the quality of the site. While there are a number of reasons for coming to T-A-Y: stoke, communication of conditions, community and discussion, etc. I know of no one who posts here seeking ridicule, insults, and personal attacks, yet that is what some receive. This is unfortunate. Usually at the hands of a couple of people. Perhaps it would make sense to make a special section of the website for off-topic threads and in-appropriate threads go to die. I know I would never check it and those that like such things would know where to find such topics. One site I used to frequent, crossfit.com ruled their forum with an iron fist and put all crap threads in “Pukie’s bucket” where they died.
I know I have cut down on the frequency of my posts, not because I am thin skinned or because I am trying to hide my secret spot but in part because it is not worth my time to spend an hour writing up a trip report only to be shat on by people who do not contribute any meaningful content other than their own sense of humor via abuse. I would rather spend my hour of trip write-up time telling a friend how my day was, since I am confident that they will not ridicule me for my day’s exploits or dig up something I said years ago, twist it and throw it up in my face.
Marcus, if I were in your shoes (I am not, however, I am grateful for your maintenance of our playground) I would be even more forceful in tossing out the people who are “crapping in the sandbox”. In the interests of your time and patience, I suspect that very small minority of people have consumed a disproportionate amount of your moderating resources.

or dig up something I said years ago, twist it and throw it up in my face.

Just to be clear, are you referring to my mention of Marcus's congratulatory post for " slapping down some people who need to hear it" that he sent to PNWBrit, TWO WEEKS before announcing he was the new owner of TAY and NOT..... "years before he took over management of TAY "  as Lowell  has spun above. He then banned PNWbrit  for doing the thing he had congratulated him for  doing just over a year ago.  That is germain when discussing the tone/atmosphere of the site and the moderation theroff no matter how much his apologists say it isn't.

Or ,
when I mentioned your infamous post where you told TAYers to lay fishing gut in the snow to mess up snowmobilers who you profess to hate in that thread,  when you were  blogging about raising donations for FOAC because you were passionate about saving avy deaths( and hopefully snowmobiler avy deaths as well)

Unfortunately, we are responsible for what we write and say in the past and I'm certainly being held responsible in the court of public opinion for things I've said and wrote in the past. Why do you feel you should be exempt for your transgressions  or  why should Marcus.

Intersting discussion. This reminds me of another community that I am a part of....though quite different as it is music........the Dead Heads and the Grateful Dead.

I recently made a comment there that I think applies here..........don't take yourself and comments too seriously. Have fun. Relax. It's all about the skiing kids, not about opinions. Ski as much as you can, and be a good soul. Peace.

The problem with the "benevolent dictator as sole business owner" model in a community orientated website is that human nature being human nature, there is always a tendency for the dictator to favor his friends or the people that align with his/her views or increase  his feelings of self-worth.

I don't disagree that there are no inherent problems with the benevolent dictator way of doing things but then ownership by committee is no guarantee of perfection either.  Singapore may jail people for chewing gum, but damn if it don't run like clockwork, has a rip roaring economy and you don't hear too much regarding human rights violations, etc.  So you see, a benevolent dictatorship can work.  

The concepts that you raise regarding rotating the moderator chair or something like that might be attractive.  Perhaps a small group that rotates to share the load and pain.

However, I guess my point was that, in principal, the idea of such a place to go and discuss BC skiing should not be so complex as to require any sort of bureaucracy to run successfully.  Also clearly there are other sites that can satisfy just about anyone's needs and if this site should lose focus or purpose, then another may well take its place.  Ultimately given enough people there could be a site for each group of conies with their honored leader at the helm.  Pretty boring proposition if you ask me.

Alan

 Singapore may jail people for chewing gum, but damn if it don't run like clockwork, has a rip roaring economy and you don't hear too much regarding human rights violations, etc.  So you see, a benevolent dictatorship can work.  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore
At some cost.
Are you promoting caning for transgressors of TAY's civility rules???

Edit to add: I actually compared TAY to the Singapore of BC skiing websites in a post a long time ago( check). I was making the point that the overemphasis on civility due to the extremely fragile egos and underbellies of some would make TAY very orderly, tame, polite and frankly boring when compared to TGR( which the argument was about) which was vibrant, not boring but a bit scary. I don't think TAY should be anything like TGR but some dissent, criticism and "adventure blogging "should be permitted to keep it vibrant and up to date, hence my preference for more looseness BUT with limits. Some anarchy is good IMHO. Singapore sounds like a very boring place, I'd much rather visit Bangkok.

If we cane the Brit, can we bring him back?

This whole thread blows me away. This site is about skiing. Sharing joys and information. There is a loud minority (granted, a very active experienced core minority that I greatly respect) that want to change things. But the majority of users don't come here to piss and shout. The TR's are great. Most of the random tracks are great. The technical information and sense of community is an amazing resource.
The moderator can do what he wants and if it's against the majority's wishes the forum will lose a lot of users. From what I can gather from posts in this thread, users are going away because of the negative tone of other users not because of the moderator's unwillingness to share the duties. Marcus do what you want to keep this a positive place focused on the joys of skiing.

Griff's got it: "Have fun. Relax. It's all about the skiing kids, not about opinions. Ski as much as you can, and be a good soul. Peace."

not in crap in Random tracks or non-backcountry ski related days in the resorts. 

Watch out ddk and CMskier, your days of being able to post in lift skiing section may be numbered. There have been two people calling for the removal of that section in this thread and obviously some have contempt for those that post in the lift ski section. It's a common TAY conceit and one I've argued against frequently and at least those that used to post in that thread about " why don't you go to the BC" when the lift skiers were discussing some point or complaining have been few recently. Those views were never moderated despite being negative against posters in the lift skiing section.
I for one love your posts and the enthusiasm and joy for skiing they show and regularly click onto CMskiers blog to read his full report( Feel free to hate me like the rest, just because I like yours , I don't expect you to like mine)