helli ski info

they use that same approach at my kids daycare

stuffy daycare for adults: now that's a winning cultural combination!

(I usually try to steer clear of sarcasm... but man, seriously?  In this day and age of multiple social media platforms nibbling away at TAY's ability to be a cohesive center of Pacific NW backcountry skiing culture and we get

...and that is absolutely his prerogative (and I support him 100%, as he has been given the responsibility of that judgment). I feel like it is in line with the cultural standards of TAY, which has always been on the stuffier side.

You really want to keep it narrow-minded and conventional: stuffy?  I'm sure that's a great way to recruit a more vibrant crowd: double down on the dour.
And loyalty trumps thinking on your own two feet? (regardless of what we advocate as good backcountry protocol)

my TAY heart is sinking...

You really want to keep it narrow-minded and conventional: stuffy?  I'm sure that's a great way to recruit a more vibrant crowd: double down on the dour.
And loyalty trumps thinking on your own two feet? (regardless of what we advocate as good backcountry protocol)

my TAY heart is sinking...

I certainly don't want to restrict the discussion here. Want to talk about commercialism and guiding in the ski industry? Start a thread! I'll jump on and give my opinions (which, TBH, are frequently aligned with HFNC). If you use a modicum of courtesy and employ the golden rule, I'm sure you will not suffer any censorship. I want to emphasize that it was HFNC's rhetorical style (behavior), not his politics or beliefs that led to the deletion of his user.

I'm thankful to have TAY. I'm thankful that Charles started the site and that Marcus and Chris have kept it going (by contributing significant personal time and effort for nothing but the satisfaction of doing it). Given that state of affairs, I'm more than happy to defer to their voices in decisions like how far to let HFNC go. I personally wouldn't (and didn't) ban him. But I certainly don't have a problem with the 'boss' doing so.

I'm sorry, Cumulus, that your TAY heart is sinking. You have posted some great stuff over the years. My TAY heart is heavy, too.

I can appreciate that. Once I deleted a pretty vulgar pic that bunny profane plastered in a 9/11 memorial thread and he about lost his mind. I didn't give it much thought when I pushed the delete button, it just felt good. He later re posted the pic and called me all sort of vulgarity and nonsenses. I just took it as part of the job. I'd probably ski with him but first I'd give him a piece of my mind and be careful on the offload ramp if we took a chair together. My point is, we didn't ban his entire history and really did nothing else. He's still a know it all east coast local but not as much a dick. problem solved and maybe a win for everyone.
did you consider a time out? works ok for us

Thanks for the advice!

my TAY heart is sinking...

+1.  I've been posting and hanging around on TAY for 16 years and I can't remember seeing the entire history of a person's posts deleted.  While it may be within the site's terms of use, it is IMO is a significant violation of most users' trust in the site.  Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the internet and current Director of the World Wide Web Consortium remarked yesterday on Twitter ( twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/976623321591762949 ) that "Any data about me, wherever it is, is mine and mine alone to control."

The site admins should restore freeski's posts.  This should be possible by restoring them from the database backups.

FWIW the context of Tim Berners-Lee's comment is rather different from this situation. For anyone living under a rock, he's referring to the sort of behavioral tracking that sites like Facebook, Amazon, and Google (and many others) do, creating large repositories of information about what we've clicked, what we've liked, what we've ignored, etc. And as I read it it's suggesting that this data should be owned by the person whose behaviors created it. Not sold and resold and inferred upon with sophisticated machine learning models without informed consent by that person.

I get the concern about a community member's record of participation being wiped clean, but I wouldn't use that statement by Mr Berners-Lee as ammunition for this notion. His statement might apply to selling the content of your posts plus your clickstream here to a third party. But the duty to maintain a faithful archive for public viewing is another matter and IMO entirely based on whatever guarantee a site owner has given to users. I can imagine many types of sites where such a guarantee would be a non-starter.