TAY Atmosphere

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. 
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. 
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?