TAY Atmosphere

It’s been a little over a year since I took over the primary administration role for TAY’s forums, and barely two months since I took official ownership of the site. I figured that it was time for a check-in and discussion to see how things were going – it’s been an educational year, to say the least, and probably more of a challenge than I might have guessed.

From the beginning, my approach to moderation on the site has been a bit different. I’d much prefer that folks control their own contributions with an occasional nudge from the moderators, rather than deleting anything that violates the Terms of Use without further comment.

That’s not always easy or effective, so I’ve played around with both approaches over the last 14 months and tried to strike a balance. TAY has always been a place that’s known for its tone and civility (and has been both praised and criticized for it) – finding ways to maintain that (as is my intention) is a constant work in progress.

Over the last year I’ve gotten a lot of feedback, both public and private, about the site and my performance, for lack of a better word. In recent months, much of that feedback has been concern that the site is becoming a harsher, more negative place. After looking through a bunch of “ancient history” (i.e. posts from before Charles handed things over), there’s definitely something to that. I don’t really understand why, though I imagine part of it is because of the “nudge vs. delete” moderation.

Beyond that, when a community like this (and there’s no doubt in my mind that this is an amazing community) starts to grow, the members themselves begin to get more control over the direction things go. Having spent a year watching it from the admin side, it’s fascinating and a lot more complex than I expected. Like trying to steer a tanker with a canoe paddle.

So, checking in. I know there’s a broad spectrum of opinions on this and I thought we’d have a discussion about it, if folks are interested. TAY, at the end of the day, is one website on a big internet, so it will certainly never meet everyone’s needs for all things, but I figured it was worth talking about. I guess I'm looking for the pulse of the community and what folks value most when they come here.

I fully support the "keep it positive" policy. I seek out the TAY vibe almost every day (except when I'm on a trip) for the information, inspiration and community.
I have met some excellent people through this website. They have committed to big tours with people they met through this site, told me their goals and weaknesses, shared trailbreaking, and linked turns in all conditions. They critique the ideas and not the person, and they don't cuss electronically at strangers.

You may be a tough skier, smart and superior,
But our pro bono posters do not want a hassle.
When you get decent people to feeling inferior
You’ll get kicked off the site if you post like an assle.

I really appreciate the civil atmosphere of TAY. BC activities are partly so special because they carry us above all the of negativity. I have seen how skiing brings together people with a wide variety of backgrounds and the differences don't seem important anymore. The task of bringing the calm of the mountains to the internet is understandably difficult. Thank you Marcus, Ron, and all who have participated.

It is so easy to turn into a jerk when you are isolated from the consequences, behind the wheel, behind the keyboard, it is obvious that I am right and they are wrong. Anyone else want to raise a hand as guilty with me? A gentle nudge is always preferable. Ideally that would be enough and we would regret putting a moderator to the trouble. If not, I think the cleaver is appropriate.

A lot of us entered this activity when there wasn't much feedback available. The trial and error approach sure makes for good memories but a little guidance for newcomers can be very important given the hazards. This site brings a lot of pleasure to me personally but more significantly, it has the potential to save lives or prevent injury through shared knowledge. To accomplish this the inviting atmosphere must be preserved. I also have a four year old who I hope will share the joy of BC as she grows. Please keep it family friendly.


Thanks again to everyone who works to keep this going.

I too agree with civility, information, inspirational photos, etc. and prefer to see posts related to those items.

Marcus, I would guess the increase in negativity you have seen overtime is not only a pathology that comes from other sites but also comes because negativity brings forth more negativity (people get irritated or provoked--often the purpose of the original negativity). Nudging somebody to tone it down can cause (naturally, rightfully) shame in the less mature who then (wrongfully) become defensive, angry, and act out with more negativity.

Please keep up the good work!

I mostly lurk here. The local information about avy conditions, weather, and potential routes to tour is priceless. The stoke from trip reports is awesome and inspiring to me as well. I have admiration for many people here who I have never met, (yet) who share their stoke and information. Thank you All!

The pissing contest mentality that pervades other skiing sites doesn't appeal to me. Lately, I post less on those sites regardless of the worthwhile content that they also contain if I look for it.

I don't hesitate to disagree with anyone factually on any subject, but I do hesitate making any disagreements into a pissing contest. I post on another site, that the ratio of factual posts to blather has risen significantly of late.  Questioning a forum members facts in a post leads less and less to an explanation of that person's opinion, and more to accusatory person attacks.

I have heard directly from one site owner that he thought his forum was "self correcting". That may be true from an information point of view, but allowing the tone of the site to be set by a few rude prolific posters is like wrestling with a pig. Although he gets more site hits with an increase in blather-posting, the quality of the information is diluted, and the tone of his site is set by a few pigs with endless amounts of time on their hands to blather on continuously.

Some people enjoy online banter for whatever their reason. I enjoy some of the funnier postings myself, so long as they aren't meant to be strictly an attack on someone. Factual dissagreements are not attacks.

I thought the "smuggest sport" posting of scottsman's was funny and participated in it, mostly making fun of my own collection of arc teryx gear. I didn't think that topic was crossing the line, maybe other's thought is was blather. There is a line that has to be drawn for appropriate content in order to set the website's tone. You are doing a good job, Marcus. I may not always agree with you, but it's in your hands. I would rather you delete or lock a questionable topic than let the tone of this site be diminished by endless blather.

I have a rule I try to follow myself. "I never post anything online that I wouldn't say to someone's face." 

I have no complaints Marcus. Keep up the good work.

Thank you all for the good trip reports, info, and stoke!

I think, given the assured anonymity nature of forums, TAY is faring much better than many other forums. I too appreciate the relative civility and I think you are doing a great job.

It is sometimes hard to distinguish between sharing information and seeking attention and it is often a very fine line between the two. In fact some may misread a post written to share info as a "look at me" promo piece (and vice versa). Misreading posts seems to be a problem for many forums, people are in hurry, always pressed for time and for some expressing their view is more important than listening to others. In short human nature exhibiting itself. Not much an admin can do.

I have been on the internet since 1992 and over the years one thing that I have noticed quite a bit is that forums that promote "senority" based on number of posts (i.e 100 posts or less = newbie, 500+ post = you can create your own custom icon, etc.) can disintegrate quite fast as new members are racing up to catch with the "older" members. I do not think this is a problem here but something to keep an eye on.

Anyway, you are doing great. Thanks for all your hard work. I appreciate it.

I think you are doing moderately well and give you a B- but I think you are improving as a moderator and you may get a higher score in the future if you keep it up.  ;D
I prefer the Marcus TAY to the Charles TAY and am happy that it has become a bit more loose and would like it looser, but thats me!

The moderation is still prone to cronyism and the ideological likes and dislikes of the majority( which is tree-hugger and  liberal ) but thats the way of the world although the tyranny of the majority must be tempered by the voices of the minority less you start believing your own press releases.

The tone is PNW passive/aggressive which should be no surprise considering where we live and sometimes  the much flaunted civility is actually faux civility.
The overemphasis on this concept of civility sometimes when taken to the extreme( which happen too often IMHO) stifles discussion although I do agree there must be some boundaries and I have admittedly pushed the boundaries on many occasions.

The one thing I do feel strongly about is the concept of positivity. It's entirely subjective first of all and what one person finds positive another may find negative and vice-versa. Somebody finds a critical post negative while the poster thinks it's a positive as the person needs to hear it for example. As I have said openly in the forum many times, I find the goal of everything having to be positive and uplifting and self-improving vomit inducing frankly not just because of the cloying atmosphere is creates but again because I think it stifles the truth and getting to to heart of the matter . As humans we have both negative and positive ( if you want to give them those labels) sides and to create an atmosphere where only positivism ( as you define it) is allowed is censorship at it's worst IMHO ( and you asked for opinions in your post)

Like many I spend a lot of time here and have never hidden my love for the site but I have also never hidden my criticism.
The site is full of wonderful people but has it's fair share of hypocrites and people who only pretend to be nice on the internet.
On several notable occasions TAY has proven to be an actual community( although I think tribe is more accurate) and it's members have risen to the occasion in times of grief and that's a wonderful thing.

Marcus, keep up the good work but don't let the praises of the gushing sycophants go to your head.
TAY is a republic not a monarchy!

I've noticed some responses to trip reports being pretty rude. Due to the nature of mountaineering, ski touring etc. potentially being... dangerous, and the many individual viewpoints on the 'acceptable level of risk', its no surprise that there are many strong opinions on the "best safest" way of doing things. But i just don't see any room for folks that need to be rude even if their opinion was in the right. I don't think there is anything wrong with expressing "concern" for a safer or better way of doing something. But in my opionion, if you can't say it in a positive way, then don't say anything at all.

The value I look for in choosing to contribute trip reports to an on-line forum such as this is positive feedback and collaboration from a larger audience than my immediate peers. I also enjoy the information made available from other trip reports on local knowledge especially in other regions I would like to someday tour in. Without this forum, I would not be as aware of new places, safety topics and stoke to get out there beyond my inner circle of friends.

This discussion requires some context.  Marcus can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this thread is a followup to the discussion that began (and was tabled) around the time that Monika Johnson disappeared on Red Mountain.

The discussion was triggered by Scotsman's "Sport with Smuggest Participants" thread.  The discussion began with a post by Lisa on 2/3/2011.  Click here for Lisa's post and followups.

I was out of town this past week and when I saw the current thread started by Marcus, I knew I would eventually have to comment.  I've been dreading this, but I take inspiration from Lisa's willingness to speak out.  Fortunately, Scotsman's post from yesterday made my job a lot easier:

I think you are doing moderately well and give you a B- but I think you are improving as a moderator and you may get a higher score in the future if you keep it up.  ;D
I prefer the Marcus TAY to the Charles TAY and am happy that it has become a bit more loose and would like it looser, but thats me!

The moderation is still prone to cronyism and the ideological likes and dislikes of the majority( which is tree-hugger and  liberal ) but thats the way of the world although the tyranny of the majority must be tempered by the voices of the minority less you start believing your own press releases.

The tone is PNW passive/aggressive which should be no surprise considering where we live and sometimes  the much flaunted civility is actually faux civility.
The overemphasis on this concept of civility sometimes when taken to the extreme( which happen too often IMHO) stifles discussion although I do agree there must be some boundaries and I have admittedly pushed the boundaries on many occasions.

The one thing I do feel strongly about is the concept of positivity. It's entirely subjective first of all and what one person finds positive another may find negative and vice-versa. Somebody finds a critical post negative while the poster thinks it's a positive as the person needs to hear it for example. As I have said openly in the forum many times, I find the goal of everything having to be positive and uplifting and self-improving vomit inducing frankly not just because of the cloying atmosphere is creates but again because I think it stifles the truth and getting to to heart of the matter . As humans we have both negative and positive ( if you want to give them those labels) sides and to create an atmosphere where only positivism ( as you define it) is allowed is censorship at it's worst IMHO ( and you asked for opinions in your post)

Like many I spend a lot of time here and have never hidden my love for the site but I have also never hidden my criticism.
The site is full of wonderful people but has it's fair share of hypocrites and people who only pretend to be nice on the internet.
On several notable occasions TAY has proven to be an actual community( although I think tribe is more accurate) and it's members have risen to the occasion in times of grief and that's a wonderful thing.

Marcus, keep up the good work but don't let the praises of the gushing sycophants go to your head.
TAY is a republic not a monarchy!

What I find in this post by Scotsman, and many of his posts in the past, is thinly veiled contempt for TAY, its moderators, and the Northwest backcountry skiing community.  A few excerpts:

* cronyism
* tree-hugger
* tyranny of the majority
* passive/aggressive
* faux civility
* vomit inducing
* cloying atmosphere
* censorship at its worst
* hypocrites
* gushing syncophants

And that's just his latest post.

As Scotsman wrote above, he has "admittedly pushed the boundaries on many occasions." In fact, this has become a regular theme of Scotsman's participation here.  He is constantly pushing buttons to tweak the moderators and the other people that he holds in contempt (including me).  I feel that this is toxic to the TAY atmosphere.  Following an unpleasant exchange with Scotsman several months ago I concluded that life was too short to engage with him and I withdrew somewhat from participating on TAY.  (I completely missed whatever it was that caused PNWBrit to be banned.) But thanks to Lisa, I've also concluded that life is also too short to be intimidated.

Scotsman writes that he thinks TAY has gotten looser since Charles handed it off and that he would like it to become looser still.  If looser means more threads like "Sport with Smuggest Participants," you can count me out.  I want TAY to be a place where any backcountry skier, aspiring or experienced, feels welcome and encouraged to participate.  I think Scotsman's attitude is a significant problem, and my concern has nothing to do with politics.  It has to do with smearing individuals and groups instead of engaging their ideas.

I now raise my umbrella and await the shit storm...

I posted the following yesterday morning and then removed it, out of cowardice as much as anything. But Lowell inspired me to speak out and so I am reposting it now:

It had always been my pleasure to participate and to recommend TAY  to others and I have been proud of the tone, community, camaraderie, and respect shown on the site. As Marcus has indicated, that was before...

Particularly I've been comfortable sending young people and others to the site assured that they will not be offended by language or tone. TAY  provided a civil alternative to TGR.

Over the course of the last year, the tone has changed. This has led some to decrease their participation as a few others have increased theirs. This is not a criticism about Marcus' performance. It is about a small group of others "performing" in an uncivil way.

The TOS provides the ethic (framework) to exchange information in a way that  promotes civility, encourages dialogue, and allows disagreement without resultant rancor.

I am of the opinion that when someone violates the TOS, the commenter should, through private communication, be given the opportunity to amend the post voluntarily. If not done so voluntarily, the moderator should remove the offending content or edit the post accordingly to comply with the TOS and the editing noted by the moderator. Repeated and flagrant violations by a commenter would suggest that another forum (e.g., TGR) might be a better fit and dis-invited from participating.

I think that it is brave of Marcus to broach this topic.

I post under my own name.

Marcus - I very much appreciate your efforts to provide a gentle and constructive influence on the nature of the site. As others have noted, things are better here than in many other places. Yet I do agree that there has been at least some shift toward a more negative atmosphere. I want to choose my words carefully, but will likely fail to some extent. Alas, the nature of written and particularly online communication...

There is a difference between reality-denying "positivism" and civility. One can have a hearty but civil disagreement, and one can discuss problems and other "negative" topics in a civil fashion.

I think it's quite possible to have a good robust debate without attacking others personally, and in fact I think a thread is more likely to "get to the heart of the matter" if folks discipline themselves to skip the tempting personal attacks while not holding back from disagreeing on more subsantive matters. Personal attacks are a fallacious form of argument (from this link: "In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim."), and from what I've seen, they tend to degrade the quality of discussion to the point where many tune out, and the ones who stay drift far from "the heart of the matter." I don't think this is "PNW passive aggression," nor hypocrisy. It is the sort of constructive civility that the father of our country espoused (and which others going further back in history also espoused). E.g. here are a few of George Washington's "rules for civility and decent behavior":

65th—Speak not injurious Words neither in Jest nor Earnest Scoff at none although they give Occasion.
73rd—Think before you Speak pronounce not imperfectly nor bring out your Words too hastily but orderly and distinctly.
76th—While you are talking, Point not with your Finger at him of Whom you Discourse nor Approach too near him to whom you talk especially to his face.
89th—Speak not Evil of the absent for it is unjust.

I think there are a few very simple rules of thumb for distinguishing between civil and constructive debate versus posts that will appear more hostile. Is the post simply arguing the topic at hand, or is it verging into making negative claims about other members of the community (some unfortunately commong "recent TAY" examples of the latter including, for instance, questioning intelligence, calling others hypocrites, labelling others with names like "tree-huggers" or casting negative and sweeping aspersions regaring "the corporate mind," and making negative claims about the skill or judgment of others). In almost all cases, the substantive points can be made w/o getting personal. E.g. while there may be an interesting and valid point about safety hiding in an attack on the judgment of the poster of a TR, the point will tend to get lost in all the heat, whereas one could take the energy found from reading about perceived dumb choices in a TR to a new thread in Random Tracks which addresses the core issues w/o calling out specific posters. There are other tactics which might also work well w/o going into attack mode, such as asking some questions of the OP about what they saw and why they made certain choices while on the trip, though it is of course a slippery slope between having useful dialog to "giving the third degree."

Here's a good post talking about how to identify "online hostility" which may help folks realize where many folks will draw the line. A few examples of behaviors this post identifies as hostile:

■Rude comments aimed at target
■Belittling target
■Teasing or mocking target
■Insulting and name-calling
■Negative insinuations about target that have no basis of truth or are knowingly false
■Negative gossip about target that is intended to harm target, which may or may not have a basis of truth
■ Ad hominem attacks against target
■Criticism of target’s appearance, age, gender, race, intellect, and so forth
■Revealing embarrassing or damaging information about target

I believe that another important point is to not make claims about the intentions of others based on their observed actions .

One can have difficult conversations w/o them degrading into attack/flame fests. I'd encourage folks not to hold back from debate, but that they try making their cases w/o veering into observations about the other posters or forum members. Try this for a while and then ask yourself "what, really, did I lose in the process?"

"Censorship" is an interesting issue. There are various means of censorship. One is active moderation such as deleting of posts (and blocking members who repeatedly violate terms-of-use despite warnings). Bullying to the point that folks either withdraw from the forum or cease trying to make certain types of points here is another. I'm far less troubled by "censorship" in the form of consistent and principled moderation than I am by censorship-by-bullying. I know of folks who have pulled away from TAY due to the latter, so this is not merely a theoretical notion of censorship. I'm sure there is a cultural aspect to what is considered "bullying" - that there may be places where immediately questioning the intelligence, moral fiber, ad hominem attacks or whatever aimed at someone who disagrees with you is seen as "healthy debate," but in both the NE and NW of the US (the places where I've lived), this is seen as bullying rather than as simply being a healthy part of a discussion.

As an occasional "hot head" around here, I have to say that I think the moderation is fine. There is a fine line between passion and hurting someone's feelings, and I guess that I'd rather have my feelings hurt a bit than miss out on great conversations.

One thing often missing here is the close relationships that allow for some bickering without irritation. For example, on a good day, my brothers and I bicker a little bit. On a bad day, we can argue forcefully. But I've known them all my life, so when they make remarks, I know the psychological context.

Here on TAY, I know almost no one other than the few folks with whom I've skiied. So, that means that it's hard for someone who doesn't know me to understand why I will argue hard, especially if it's science-related. For someone who doesn't know me, I just look like an a*****.

If everyone here knew each other better, there would be a lot less hurt feelings. I've skiied with Scotsman, and he is truly generous, fun, and intelligent company. But I can see how someone who doesn't know him would perhaps not understand some of his posts, nor his sense of humour. Everyone here should feel safe when participating, but I think that Scotsman makes some valid points: it's not always possible to avoid hurt feelings when you're having a spirited discussion.

Many of the social graces involve white lies and some degree of emotional dishonesty. I would hate to see TAY become the type of place that always emphasises politeness over truth.

Who here hasn't said something they regret at one point or another, both online, and in-real-life? Did the remark really indicate how you felt about that person?

One thing often missing here is the close relationships that allow for some bickering without irritation. For example, on a good day, my brothers and I bicker a little bit. On a bad day, we can argue forcefully. But I've known them all my life, so when they make remarks, I know the psychological context.
...
Many of the social graces involve white lies and some degree of emotional dishonesty. I would hate to see TAY become the type of place that always emphasises politeness over truth.

Who here hasn't said something they regret at one point or another, both online, and in-real-life? Did the remark really indicate how you felt about that person?

You make an important point about the difference between spirited discussion with close friends and relatives versus in a big online community.

I question whether "emotional honesty" requires publically airing the negative thoughts one has about another. Perhaps if one takes the phrase to the extreme, it does, but then it will tend to come at the cost of "constructive and enlightening discussion" and will stifle more important "truth and the heart of the matter" (I mean really, is knowing that person A thinks person B is being stupid really a super important "heart of the matter" to air, even at the expense of, for instance, having a good community discussion about prudent backcountry decision-making which doesn't devolve and push members away?).

I've certainly said and written things I've regretted. The regret is a good indication that I should try to avoid repeating these actions.

Many of the social graces involve white lies and some degree of emotional dishonesty. I would hate to see TAY become the type of place that always emphasises politeness over truth.

I agree with the point, I hope you are not trying to use it to justify intentional bad behavior. We could take just one comment Made by Scotsman in this thread:

Marcus, keep up the good work but don't let the praises of the gushing sycophants go to your head.
TAY is a republic not a monarchy!

This comment appears to refer to myself and a few others who are thanking or complimenting Marcus. The truth is I really appreciate what Marcus and Ron do for all of us and I want them to know it. Belittling others for expressing their honest opinion will sacrifice truth and drastically reduce the value of our community. I don't see how the insult adds anything of value. If I am misinterpreting the comment, more care needs to be taken by the author.

I think a personal introduction section would be great... I think TAY is a great community and I'd like to get to know everyone better! I agree with just about everyone's comment in some way, and maybe a "personal opinions" type section might also be good. Right now, Random tracks just about covers that, but maybe a place where people can argue all out about things like Avy safety and other topics that can be very arguable. I think that a lot of rude comments are because people have differing opinions on topics like safety, and it could be very healthy to address these concerns. I do think that TAY IS a great forum, and has really valuable information, and a positive attitude.

I guess I'll jump into this one with the caveat that it's better to be thought fool rather than opening one's mouth and removing all doubt. From my limited perspective on this new fangled internut chat room I have truly enjoyed the banter, trip reports and general supportive nature of discourse on TAY. I firmly believe that folks who do what most TAYer's do are a breed far removed from the typical resort skier, and are perhaps a bit brighter as well. I've been appalled at the level of venomous hate on the TGR boards, leading me to conclude that climbing up and jumping off stuff in and of itself does necessarily produce a human being of a higher calling. I have been ashamed and mortified to have made turns with some of the foul mouthed, disrespectful maggots over the years. While I have some familiarity with language of the more obscene variety, I try limit my use of such, particularly in a public arena. Imagine how loudly I could yell profane with all my PA gear ! Moderation in my modest view is a slippery slope, fraught with unconsolidated layers, slabs and mystery facets. I would humbly suggest a rating system, thumbs up or down with a cumulative rating for each poster. Let the bull chips then fall where they may. Lowell may have the best idea with the umbrella.

Take a vote, but I say dump the Lift access reports.
This is a BC site and it would be great to focus on BC reports and conditions in the BC. There is a lot of hype and attitude that bleeds off of those reports. Originally that threadline started because people were posting lift reports in the BC trip reports. Lets just call it quits on those period. If someone wants to post about snow conditions that were seen in the snow pack from lift access post them on the NWAC. There are lots of ways to find or post that info via on FOAC.

Move with a swift sword and drop the posting of frivolous, irrelevant topics. Like bobbles on hats.

I like this site to share and get info on how to's of ski gear, reviews and such. Trip reports are interesting if there is some participation by the poster besides 5 pictures and no explanation of the conditions. TAY is a one stop shop for all the weather info any BC person needs around here.

I'm glad there's a website I can go to where I don't have to worry about somebody posting disgusting photos of their cross-contaminated filthy kitchen. Photos of raw meat be it lamb, bacon, what have you make me sick. And I never see it here. I'm glad the pigs have not infiltrated this site with their photos of bacteria infested raw meat boiling over on their filthy stove top.

Me mostly a lurker...but I will chime in. I really don't notice any difference. Seriously. There are personalities, and some negative personalities make life interesting. Who wants to have ALL positive personalities? Not me. Mostly positive is good with some negativity...but then again I don't notice much difference.

What upsets me is there are not many topics!!!!! Maybe you dudes are out skiing too much.

I'm glad there's a website I can go to where I don't have to worry about somebody posting disgusting photos of their cross-contaminated filthy kitchen.  Photos of raw meat be it lamb, bacon, what have you make me sick.  And I never see it here.  I'm glad the pigs have not infiltrated this site with their photos of bacteria infested raw meat boiling over on their filthy stove top.

Oh, thank god someone has finally stated what I've been too afraid to say all this time.

Jim_Oker, Splitter, Wally, and the others make great points.

I'm certainly not in favour of allowing bullying to masquerade as "honesty". Not at all. What I hope is that people who are members of this community can see that spirited discussions, as with family, aren't intended to ruin someone's day. Usually, I give the benefit of the doubt. Does this person really intend to offend me?

The other side of the coin is what I refer to as relationship perfectionism. This is the position where conflict is viewed as abhorrent, and something to be avoided. I think some folks here believe in a more conflict-limiting approach, while others prefer a more conflict-is-allowed approach.

I suppose it's up to Marcus to determine the appropriate balance.

This is the position where conflict is viewed as abhorrent, and something to be avoided. I think some folks here believe in a more conflict-limiting approach, while others prefer a more conflict-is-allowed approach..

Well said Cookie...
Or I call it dancing around vs cut to the chase.

At times it's difficult to read (as in literally reading) what a person is trying to say from a blog post. IMO the majority of people who gather here do not like to incite what is perceived as conflict, which for most of us is just a norm for working things out. I know that I have posted material and when reading the responses I wonder....Did they even read what I wrote before they replied? So then maybe I need to be more direct to get my point across?

I don't care for much of the BS perpetrated by Trolls, but find it pretty easy to skip over if they keep it to Random Tracks (I don't read it very often). I wonder why Scotsman and his ilk don't just head over to TGR where there seem to be no such rules and have at it. I don't know if some of that has put off TR posters, but the they seem to be thin of late. I miss the article style TRs which I thought beat the ski mags by a long shot. For myself the photo limit moved me to NWH to post TRs and link back here to share (their photo posting is also much simpler). It would also be cool if the search engine could be tweaked to make it easier to find old TRs (which should be kept in their entirety).

I do appreciate everything Charles did to start the site, and Marcus is doing to keep it going. At times it must feel like herding cats.

I don't know if some of that has put off TR posters, but the they seem to be thin of late.

Actually I think go back to last season they were getting pretty thin. Don't see a lot of reports from myself and the old guard.  Maybe people not wanting to post about their areas since most everyone seems to flock to where a report is last posted from. Maybe more peer pressure to not expose areas to the internet. Not sure exactly, but I doubt it was fear of bullying. One thing that seems to be true, if you want to have privacy on a tour, post about a tour on one side of the valley and tour the other side, because that is where all the lurkers go.

The other side of the coin is what I refer to as relationship perfectionism. This is the position where conflict is viewed as abhorrent, and something to be avoided. I think some folks here believe in a more conflict-limiting approach, while others prefer a more conflict-is-allowed approach.

I am all for conflict.  Disagreement, spirited discussion, outright arguing are all good things.  I just prefer when it takes the form of "here is what I think and why" instead of the "you must be an idiot if you think that" approach.

What I hope is that people who are members of this community can see that spirited discussions, as with family, aren't intended to ruin someones day. Usually, I give the benefit of the doubt. Does this person really intend to offend me?

I also agree with this, there needs to be a certain amount of back and forth to eliminate any misunderstanding.  The ability to be open minded and give the benefit of the doubt allows the conversation to continue.  I am prone to sarcasm and often make light of a situation or topic.  I don't mean to offend, but if I do, I hope someone would point it out.

CookieMonster - for the record, I don't recall you ever coming across as an ass.  I just have a hard time reconciling your picture with my 4 yr old's little blue stuffy.

Don't see a lot of reports from myself and the old guard. 

When TAY first started, Charles used us (myself, Ron and a few others) as his “guinea pigs” before opening a new section of the board.  TAY was a place to go to get great information, read trip reports, post pictures, see others comments and feel “safe”.  As communities grow so does its membership and with that so do personalities.  Fun jarring was accepted,  flame throwing and bullying didn't happen.  There has been a turn by some in this community which has gone over the line. 

I have been reluctant to post or add to a thread for "fear" of bullying or intimidation.  Becoming a member of the "geezer" status makes for shorter trips and much smaller aspirations.  There have been many times when even our short tours have produced some great conditions, but for fear of the "bullying" aspect I am reluctant to post.  Proud to be in my 6th decade and still enjoying the BC. I would like to see TAY stay positive and civil, (disagreements ok) but stop the name calling, foul language, and bullying.

I am all for conflict.  Disagreement, spirited discussion, outright arguing are all good things.  I just prefer when it takes the form of "here is what I think and why" instead of the "you must be an idiot if you think that" approach.

Bingo. To those who are skeptical, try it! Try being as opinionated as ever about the interesting topics at hand, but attempt to leave out personal attacks, namecalling, and guesses at the intentions of the other posters (these being far less interesting and more corrosive topics).

I use TAY mostly in this order weather links, trip reports for ideas and entertainment, random tracks for knowledge and entertainment, and personal yardsale for gear.

When reading trip reports and random tracks, I specifically look for posts that Scotsman started and/or has contributed to, because his posts are usually intelligent, articulate and funny. I don't want him to be banned or censored because some people have fragile egos. Just looking at the CONTENT of some of his posts, he isn't criticizing people's worth or value, but their judgement and/or actions. Ironically, responses to his criticisms often contain personal attacks.

Steve

In a nutshell, I'm happy with my experience. I have been educated as in my thread "Dynafit for Dummies" and many others. I've also been rebuked (I think) but as my WWII Special Forces dad once said to me, "They can't shoot you so what's the problem?".  I like TAY as I do the newspaper. A mixture of Fact (Stock Quotes) Fiction (Politics) and Entertainment(Comics) with a little You're an Idiot (OP ED's) thrown. As with the newspaper, I take what I need and ignore the rest.  I am currently in the process of writing a well thought out, non-threatening and constructive reply requiring much self introspection and rewriting. In the meantime as I read this thread, visions pop into my head that make me chuckle.  Based on a way more previous post so as not to offend.

CADDYSHACK!!!

I'm not a big poster in general, mostly because I don't feel like my TR's are really that worthy. I don't go anywhere too special and never to any secret spots but I’ve been trying to get some info out there lately if it helps others. I try to jump in on the random tracks posts if I think I can add some info/value but that's not too often as many folks jump on right away and provide some good info/replies. I’ve gotten a lot of value from some of the tech/gear info on the random tracks pages.

I am a fan of keeping personal attacks at bay. To me disagreeing on stuff is a-ok and can drive better info/answers. But telling someone they are a moron for disagreeing is not fun to be around – whether or not it is directed at me or someone else.

Keith's approach made sense to me. As moderator if you feel things are going down the wrong path then maybe it can be addressed offline and give poster a chance to revisit. If the poster doesn't address then you can take action. Maybe this is what you do already. Any of the pissing match stuff gets old fast and would be fine by me if that was shut down outright.

I also like Joedabaker's idea of killing the lift accessed stuff.