Redacted Squad - offensive route names on MP

Bill Lawrywrote:

Perhaps an explanation for some of the generally understood-to-be-silly redactions:  That 'governing' group - not just MP owners - did create a list of words that were outright unacceptable no matter what else accompanied them. For example, I recall that "nazi" was included.  So at least some of the redacted route names could be from people trying to be helpful to the 'governing' group.

The above is partly why I asked earlier if those working to change route names have asked flaggers for justification.  Personally, at this point, I'd heavily discount flag justifications simply referring to the 'governing' group's list of forbidden words.

I see a good number of route names that have the word “nazi” in them that predate and survived the 2020 reichstag. And the number of redacted names are about 800 right now. Let’s generously say about 200 routes are already “renamed.” Thats maybe 1000 route names. It’s really not that many. 10 people could go through all of them in maybe 15 minutes. This isn’t facebook or youtube where there are billions and billions of messages. And a cursory sample brings up a lot of routes that are obviously not offensive to anyone but an extremist.

Maybe your forbidden word theory is true for an initial list to review, but it seems obvious that someone went through that list and made decisions.

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

I’m waiting for Soup Nazi, a reference to a beloved episode from Seinfeld, a Jew, to be unredacted

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

... if a person got triggered by a route name that they were too grossly uncultured to understand ...

doesn't get a Seinfeld reference = grossly uncultured

Its not okay to leave 100's of routes as "Redacted" FOR YEARS.

Wow, the pearl clutching around some route names missing on an online business's website is hilarious.

I love offensive, funny route names. And I'll always use them in person among my friends who wouldn't be offended. But for a business they are reducing risk. They care very little that some people are offended because they think the route names have been removed for the wrong reason, or some names that actually aren't offensive got caught up in the mix. They'll focus on changes that improve profitability. Doing something about the route names is, I'm sure, an extremely low priority for them.

MP isn't changing the names of the routes. They are choosing not to display names of routes that some people may find offensive. If that's a big problem for you you've got too much time on your hands.

I've been naming all my FAs "Redacted" to increase the confusion.   

I just read in a separate thread about how Open Beta was/is scraping from MP. And that the 'creative' content (as MP describes users route entries) belongs to the user. So much for that.

For example, there was/is an admin of MP in NM who is offended by OB scraping their beta entries into MP, but they as an admin for the NM area has no problem redacting someone else's creative entry (albeit offensive) to MP. such contradiction.

Would it be possible for MP to offer a "continue" or "No thanks" click option to those route names deemed offensive? Let the user exercise their freedom to choose to be offended or not.

jcs

jackscoldsweatwrote:

I just read in a separate thread about how Open Beta was/is scraping from MP. And that the 'creative' content (as MP describes users route entries) belongs to the user. So much for that.

For example, there was/is an admin of MP in NM who is offended by OB scraping their beta entries into MP, but they as an admin for the NM area has no problem redacting someone else's creative entry (albeit offensive) to MP. such contradiction.

Would it be possible for MP to offer a "continue" or "No thanks" click option to those route names deemed offensive? Let the user exercise their freedom to choose to be offended or not.

Admins are volunteers and don't decide whether route names are allowed.

Earnest question. Can you say more about how the "continue" or "No thanks" option differs from what's in place today? You can opt into seeing the original name on any of the redacted routes by clicking the little "i" icon to the right of the redacted route name taking you to a page like this: https://www.mountainproject.com/updates/Climb-Lib-Models-Area/105891376/redacted 

I got a few route names for areas I care about unredacted by contacting OnX employees(not admins, they can do nothing about the redacted flag), politely explaining why I thought the names weren't offensive, and politely following up if i didn't hear back in a few weeks.  The trick is that the name actually has to not be offensive, and you have to be reasonable and polite.

Andrew Gramwrote:

I got a few route names for areas I care about unredacted by contacting OnX employees(not admins, they can do nothing about the redacted flag), politely explaining why I thought the names weren't offensive, and politely following up if i didn't hear back in a few weeks.  The trick is that the name actually has to not be offensive, and you have to be reasonable and polite.

Thanks for the info! Having a stab at it. Sent OnX some sweet Soup nazi cllips to help out ;).

JCS,
If you're going to bring me into this conversation, please get the facts straight.

Regional Admins on Mountain Project are climbers just like you. We volunteer to moderate the content for our individual areas. We are not redacting or changing route names at will. We are not involved in current decisions related to this renaming effort.

As an active climber who uses the Mountain Project website/app regularly, I personally don't like seeing the "Redacted" names when I come upon them. To me, it's a reminder that the effort, started prior to OnX buying Mountain Project, is not finished and appears to be in limbo. For that reason, I appreciate that this thread was started to ask for a progress report. 

If you read my comment at the start of this thread, I offered to contact the FAs for routes in NM to work with them to get the routes out of the "Redacted" state. For each individual route, it might result in the FA deciding to change the name or it might mean that an email is sent to the OnX team requesting that the name be removed from the "Redacted" state or it might mean that one of the three NM admins makes an executive decision for the routes in our state. Every case is different.

When the "Redacted" project started, it was a very different time and the people making decisions tried to make good decisions for this community. My understanding is that most of the names were redacted automatically by a script that used a list of words developed by a committee comprised of a wide spectrum of volunteer climbers. I wasn't involved in this, nor do I know the fine level details.

Ultimately, the original poster is asking for a progress report on this renaming project. It would be nice to have that.

 or it might mean that one of the three NM admins makes an executive decision for the routes in our state. Every case is different.

to the  'LEOs' of OnX/MP

What does an executive decision look like against someone else's creative content?

fight the power,
jcs

So many of the ethics in rock climbing revolve around carefully respecting the original intent and style of the route developer/FA, more often than not, erring on the side of caution. People die on climbs, and despite this we protect the style of the route developer/FA.

As a climber, the things that might be ACTUALLY offensive is if the bolts got chopped, if someone bolted a trad climb, if every hand and foothold is ticked, if someone chips a new hold on an established climb, if someone’s vandalizing the rock with graffiti, etc. All examples of things where some entitled parasite imposes themselves on the work of the original developers. Just like the people trying to censor route names.

Why is there no compassion for the developer, who put thankless hours into creating a route, grinding down wire-brush upon wire-brush cleaning it up, putting down their own cash and time, who finally caps their labor of love with a totally innocent name? Between the bolts, the many fixed lines, hours spent at skilled wage rate, and the equipment, some legendary developers are losing thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. Is it worth trampling on what might be 100 innocent route names because some people are getting offended on behalf of the victims of their imagination? 

And even if someone did write an actually antisemitic route name, which I’m sure there are some out there, as a jew, I could not care less. I’d happily get on such a climb and give it 5 stars if it’s a classic. It’s just words. Get over yourself. You don’t like the route? Go develop your own and name it whatever you want.

Are some of these redacted route names offensive and edgy? Yes. Are people way too sensitive and overreactive about offensive route names? Also yes.  

The fact of the matter is that routes belong to the community even before you clean the route/add the bolts to it

LOL. Wrong in every sense - legal, social, moral.

Anna Brownwrote:

it might mean that one of the three NM admins makes an executive decision for the routes in our state.

I’m not sure of the reason behind the decision going to one person for that case, Anna. So on face value …

The majority of the three should be preferred? The decision to keep or rename a route due to offense isn’t dependent on someone’s familiarity with a crag - unlike other crag-specific decisions an admin might make. It is a judgement about the degree of offense to the majority of people or some subset or average person or whatever.

Someone familiar with the crag and the FA-ists may have personal biases. Leads me to wonder if the best decision would usually come from a majority of a group of admins with no connection to the crag at all.

Some folks seem to think that the name bestowed by the FA is an inseparable part of a legacy project, and to exclude a poorly chosen name is to rob the FA and violate their civil rights. The horror.

Naming things and climbing things are different skills. Some are good at both, but 'naming rights' are a social convention extended as a courtesy and are not actually part of the climbing achievement. Abuse that courtesy and get pulled off the stage by the vaudeville hook. The rock doesn't care.

Well said! Gregger for president

Jonathan Walker wrote:

Entitlement much?

Just because a route is free to the public to climb, doesn't mean you own all rights to it. Otherwise, chipping, gluing, adding hardware, manufacturing holds, etc. would be just as acceptable, given a large enough "community" vote. Obviously that does not fly.

Authors write books and publish them for the public. If the "community" does not like the content, they don't have to read it. But banning or redacting someone's work because you don't like it is plain and flat-out stupid.

Except this is literally how it works. It's just uncommon for a community consensus to agree to do those things. Many developers should, and do, understand this. You may not be developing with the community's wishes in mind, and the reality is that if that's the case, the community what they perceive as the problem if enough people agree to it. You can call it "entitlement" all you want, but as someone who has cleaned+equipped 100+ new routes, built literal miles of trails, and replaced hundreds of old bolts in the efforts of establishing new and maintaining old climbing areas, I'm more inclined to just say it's an understanding of how the world actually works rather than some in-a-vacuum ethical system.

Cherokee, feel free to expand on your comment. Short of developing on private land for private use, my point stands. If you don't like it, don't publish your routes - but there's still the chance of someone stumbling upon it and it entering the local climbing zeitgeist regardless. I'd love to see what legal claim you've been bequeathed for an FA though 

Todd Berlier wrote:

Sir, I personally haven't ever been offended by a route name. I also don't understand what part of you makes you assume that. I'm just showing support for those that are by the overtly racist, sexist, homophobic and disdainful to sexual assault and folks with mental issues route names. 

Fair nuff Todd. I stand behind standing behind your friends and glad you have not been offended. Thank you for providing context as its important to understand where you're coming from =)

As I pointed out, the huge queer circle of friends I have say problematic shit all the time, but because they are queer it is just brushed off as okay, funny, what have you...where as if I, a cis white male, said the same things It would likely not go so well. I point this out because hypocrisy in freedom of speech is rampant these days IMO, and I think it doesn't benefit anyone. This sint to say there are not consequences for using that freedom.
I absolutely respect your right to call a route whatever you want to whom ever you want. But for the record of climbing history, redaction is lame IMO. Reading about horrible things in history is hard, but do you redact them so one doesn't get triggered because it IS offensive and horrible and may cause uncomfortable feelings? Of course not....

A choice to show support for them over what I would consider irrelevant historical significance. Especially relative to everything else that goes into a FA.

Some of us may think the history is relevant. Who is right? I'm going with both of us cause opinions are rad.

The inability to show empathy to historically marginalized folks is problematic in its own right...and part of a boys club mentality (to bring this BS full circle).

Nothing about wanting to keep route names un redacted are me not showing empathy to marginalized folks. Both can exist. It offers a moment to give those folks the history and context to put down the pitch forks against something and in general just understand more which I think makes a more informed place to form opinions. I dont see how that could be bad.
Supporting freedom of speech and my marginalized friends is possible and may drive deeper conversation on such topics. And who knows from those, maybe I'll change my tune someday. I try to have a student mentality in this life.

mountain project can do what it likes as a company around those names on their site. 100%. No argument there despite my distaste.

I'd love to see what legal claim you've been bequeathed for an FA though

No you missed the point.

The public does not own public land. End of "belongs to" topic. Public land belongs to the deed holder, such as Federal or State government level. And no, that is not public ownership and the members of the public who visit such lands don't own one single thing on those parcels, not the routes, not the names, nothing. Nothing belongs to the community.

I confer no legal rights to FA. FA doesn't own the land either (unless, she does actually own it then its her to do as she will).

To to review: the public doesn't own public land nor the human creations foisted upon that public land. Neither does the FA. There is no moral high ground, no "belongs to", no "community decision."

It is always the acts of individuals, to place, remove, name and publish route info. Government can of course intercede in this process and has, and will continue to do so. But some notion of community property is ridiculous - legally, socially, morally. Routes aren't "given over" to the public nor the community. They are shared. Sharing doesn't convey ownership. Thus, those who decide to rename the works of others, without permission, have no basis in any law or social covenant. You route renamers cannot hide behind "belongs to the community" for your individual acts of suppression.