TAY Atmosphere

I appreciate many of the points Jim Oker made in this post (emphasis below added by me):

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.")...

Suggestion to Jim and Marcus: Would it be helpful to refine Jim's post and make it a sort of addendum to (or elaboration on) the TAY guidelines? Maybe a separate page that can be linked to. Something like this could be a helpful reference when a thread goes off the rails. It might be helpful for TAYers to "self-moderate."

Jim's point about focusing on the content of a claim and not on the characteristics of the person making the claim resonates with me. Scotsman's favorite smear of me is that I am a hypocrite. He's pulled this out several times when I've offered a critique of outdoor media. He feels that because I volunteer-published the Northwest Mountaineering Journal ( www.nwmj.org ) for several years, any criticism I make about outdoor media is hypocrisy.

Returning to Jim's point, Scotsman could have started an interesting discussion by asking me, "How do you reconcile your opinions with your work on the NWMJ?" On the occasions when he has smeared me, I've tried to explain where I'm coming from, but it has gone nowhere. Tossing out the word hypocrite is so much simpler. And it makes it easy to completely avoid addressing (on the merits) whatever it was that I was originally trying to say. And now the idea that TAY has "its fair share of hypocrites" is a meme that Scotsman continues to promote .

In my opinion, the current posting guidelines are well stated, simple, and should be enforced:

•Be civil and respectful, avoid personal attacks - that is the norm here;
•Alternate viewpoints are welcome: debate the viewpoint, not the person;
•This is a skiing forum: please keep your posts related to skiing;

My request is that the current guidelines be enforced by the moderators.  I am sure some will argue that what constitutes a personal attack or being disrespectful is subject to opinion, and that placing any limits is a form of censorship.  I disagree.  I think it is a matter of common sense and common courtesy which this site deserves.

Paul has nailed it and I could not agree more. I owe the site a lot for real world benefit; new friends, trips I would not otherwise have gone on, safety knowledge and discussions. It’s discouraging both to wade through posts of personal attacks trying to find useful content, and also to avoid entering a potentially substantive discussion either for worry about being dragged down into the crap or because the thread has already gone there.

The name calling seems a lot like a political attack ad.  Discount your opponenent and hope everyone stops paying attention to their message.  Fortunately, I think most TAYers are more discriminating than the electorate average.  (how's that for elitist?)

I don't see any reason for eliminating frivolous topics.  While I didn't have any interest in bobble hats, I am entertained by many of Scotsman's topics.  As long conforms to the posting guidelines, let it go.

I think upgrading software to allow Hummel type reports would help to refocus us all on what this site is really about.

Any time you challenge someone's ideas, there's a distinct (high, actually) risk that someone will take it personally, no matter how nice you try to be. While I admire the high ideals expressed by those seeking only constructive, non-personal discourse, I firmly believe that enforcing such an atmosphere will squelch this site.

The key word is "enforce." If, instead, the people who want this specific type of discourse become more active on the site than those who prefer a more open dialogue, you won't need to enforce it, it will just happen.

The "I don't post because Scotsman does" logic (yes I know no one said this directly, but I do think it's inferred) I see evolving in this thread is defeatist and lazy. The direction of this community is up to you. Want more positivity? Post more positivity. Put in as much energy as Scotsman does. Sending PMs to the moderators is not the way to create a vibrant, sustainable community. Get it in the open.

Already in Kyle's TR thread, there's now arguing about arguing. If there's ever a recipe for driving people away, combine that discussion with "I don't post TRs because I don't want anyone to go to my stash" and "I'm too scared to post" and you've got it.

Be brave and energetic enough to create the community you want, if indeed it's important enough to you. If not, those of us who are comfortable with a more free-flowing, at times messy, community will overwhelm you, simply by participating in the open.

...those of us who are comfortable with a more free-flowing, at times messy, community will overwhelm you, simply by participating in the open.

This is what I both read and hear directly is happening for some folks who participate less these days. This seems to be the way of these things, and expecting the perhaps meeker folks to "step up" appears quite unrealistic. Though I too very muck dislike the attacks (but I do love a good argument), I've chosen a different course - to attempt, and sometimes fail, to follow the example I'd prefer of content-focused debate when conflict occurs rather than the lazy and corrosive resort to personal attacks and bullying. I tend to call out the latter when I see it, and perhaps overdo it at times (e.g. on Kyle's TR thread), though I've gotten some private thanks for speaking up as well.

What I'm taking away from this thread is that no matter how the site is moderated, someone is going to feel like it's not their cup of tea and move on. So it seems to me that at the end of the day it's up to the guy running the site to decide what sort of place he wants to try to foster, and accept that someone's not going to like it.

Some have fairly noted that many folks will take any disagreement with their views personally. I see quite a difference, though, between this and not wanting to deal with bullying or other forms of personal attack. I too would hate to see a site where any disagreement is discouraged, and frankly I don't think we're even close to being there, and I'd hold up this and some other recent threads as Exhibit A. I think it's reasonable to expect folks to learn to deal with respectful disagreement, just as it's reasonable to expect folks to disagree respectfully.

To Lowell's point - I'd be happy to party with Marcus on refining what I wrote above, assuming this is in the vein of how he wants to guide the site.

Marcus, I do not post all that often, and do not engage in the day to day topics that come up, I do however read almost every day, and I love the trip reports, sorry to see that some of the best reporters are un happy and have decided to check out, too bad for me. I am a Luddite, and do not understand many of the issues about posting pictures, but I think it sure adds to a trip reports. My most important comment would be that I greatly appreciate you keeping the tone of TAY civil, I occasionally look at some of the other skiing pages, but end up here. There are plenty of great examples of the great comunity this is, and I think that is worth keeping. If people want to be mean and nasty there are plenty of venues for that, I think that leaves plenty of room for tough commentary, and mostly with a few noted exceptions, what I see is how I like it.