Requesting "Ladies Crag" forum

I read the forums often and almost never post (yeah, even posting this is terrifying). I would probably be more inclined to participate in a ladies' forum. Sorry Old lady H, not everyone has as thick as skin as you do. I'd love to have more discussions here on MP like the topics in the screenshot La MoMoFace posted and having a ladies' forum might help encourage that.

The sub forums we have are all broken down into discussion subjects, not segregated by user groups. I sympathise but think the issues should be dealt with more straight on then segregation.   I am mixed on the idea of censoring but in less anonymous interactions the social blowback from making rude commentary and spraying every unfiltered thought  that comes into your head acts as a  check to most of us that aren't sociopaths or really badly brought up, so, unfortunately you end up needing some moderation on forums to keep the trolls and idiots from ruining them for everybody else. I do think the moderation could be improved and should be more aggressive against personal attacks and the juvenile sexual commentary should be reduced significantly (for those making them, they are pretty lame attempts to make a connection with the subject and only serve to make you look like a sad loser) We as users probably need to be a little more reasonable in understanding a moderators difficulty in finding a perfect balance and not freak out if our dumb ass commentary is removed in an attempt to head off a shitshow that just drives people away except for the score of trolls who get a fix off it.

One point about female MP participation, I would like to see more participation in the core of MP, the route and area database (kind of like few woman actively participate in new routing and area development (it is getting better). Using the excuse that the forum is nasty is kind of a copout. The forum is a sideshow that acts like a honeypot to the bored and verbally diarrheic. 

Bill Lawry wrote:

Yes. 

I had been writing something else.  But, yes, the majority of males do not really understand while only needing a nudge here and there towards understanding.

I don't think it's a male/female thing, necessarily. Everyone has an asshole, everyone can be one. 

The posts against this are all by men. Seems like some self reflection by any male opposed to this is called for. I mean, the very opposition to this forum suggestion is proof that there perhaps should be a heavily modded subforum for women

M Sprague wrote:

The sub forums we have are all broken down into discussion subjects, not segregated by user groups. I sympathise but think the issues should be dealt with more straight on then segregation.  

I think site organization is a lazy and convenient excuse to not do something. I also don't see a women's forum, and attacking issues head on, as being mutually exclusive.

As far as the route features of this site...that's another discussion? I don't see how it's relevant here, other than if the forums (which come up most when you google questions on climbing) were made more welcoming to women and others, you would see uptick in diverse participation in other areas of the site. 

M Sprague wrote:

The sub forums we have are all broken down into discussion subjects, not segregated by user groups. I sympathise but think the issues should be dealt with more straight on then segregation.   I am mixed on the idea of censoring but in less anonymous interactions the social blowback from making rude commentary and spraying every unfiltered thought  that comes into your head acts as a  check to most of us that aren't sociopaths or really badly brought up, so, unfortunately you end up needing some moderation on forums to keep the trolls and idiots from ruining them for everybody else. I do think the moderation could be improved and should be more aggressive against personal attacks and the juvenile sexual commentary should be reduced significantly (for those making them, they are pretty lame attempts to make a connection with the subject and only serve to make you look like a sad loser) We as users probably need to be a little more reasonable in understanding a moderators difficulty in finding a perfect balance and not freak out if our dumb ass commentary is removed in an attempt to head off a shitshow that just drives people away except for the score of trolls who get a fix off it.

Something I would like to see across the entire set of forums is much more transparency in moderation - don't just have posts disappear (and if you do that, what about the offensive parts that were quoted in replies? Does the reply get deleted as well? What if it was calling out the offensive idea/language?) and don't just say it violated policy - leave a placeholder and an explanation of why it was removed. That may help more in the educational process than a merely vanished post. 

So...proverbial heads on stakes?

s.price wrote:

This is what I am getting at as well. Guideline #1 just doesn't work and is widely ignored on the site and rarely punished. On the site I moderate at we have a very defined set of guidelines in place. Actually more than I would care to see on MP. But as long as this site refuses to show the jerks who post here frequently that there will be no repercussions for their actions nothing will change. Not even with a heavy hand on the ladies forum. 

Allowing the kid behind you on the plane to continually kick your seat will not modify their behavior. Calling them out for doing so will. If that fails a smack on the cheek should cure it.

The problem with very defined rules is that the jerks who will argue for days (months even, some are pretty out there) with you  over some technicality to try to get around them. Non jerks will understand the gist of "Don't be a jerk" and if they occasionally step over the line don't get bent out of shape when called on it. It also leaves the moderator with some leeway to be reasonable and judge the context. 

Ted Pinson wrote:

So...proverbial heads on stakes?

I don't think it needs to go that far!

Ted Pinson wrote:

So...proverbial heads on stakes?

WE THIRST FOR BLOOD!

Lol at those claiming that they sympathize but that things should "just be done the way they've always been done" with little to no acknowledgement that the status quo is purposefully created to both oppress the other while working to make those that benefit from its system unaware of their own benefit.

Pretty funny - and a good note on which to just go out climbing!

Marc801 C wrote:

Something I would like to see across the entire set of forums is much more transparency in moderation - don't just have posts disappear (and if you do that, what about the offensive parts that were quoted in replies? Does the reply get deleted as well? What if it was calling out the offensive idea/language?) and don't just say it violated policy - leave a placeholder and an explanation of why it was removed. That may help more in the educational process than a merely vanished post. 

I moderated the forum for a while. It is pretty painful. A moderator, unfortunately, absolutely can not get into explaining their decisions to people individually and must remain anonymous. Out of respect for posters and naivety I made that mistake and tried a few times. You are dealing with quite a few crackpots with real psychological problems and they will argue with you to death bc you took down their post or killed a shitshow thread. Trying to write a thoughtful and diplomatic explanation beyond a form letter to everybody would be more than a full time job. You end up having to have a thick skin and doing the best you can. Most reasonable people after posting something that gets moderated will probably already realize on their own that they were being jerky. Sometimes it is more effective to let the community express there reaction as OLH talked about, but the nature of anonymous forums with their natural drift to the lowest common denominator requires moderation.

M Sprague wrote:

I moderated the forum for a while. It is pretty painful. A moderator, unfortunately, absolutely can not get into explaining their decisions to people individually and must remain anonymous. Out of respect for posters and naivety I made that mistake and tried a few times. You are dealing with quite a few crackpots with real psychological problems and they will argue with you to death bc you took down their post or killed a shitshow thread. Trying to write a thoughtful and diplomatic explanation beyond a form letter to everybody would be more than a full time job. You end up having to have a thick skin and doing the best you can. Most reasonable people after posting something that gets moderated will probably already realize on their own that they were being jerky. Sometimes it is more effective to let the community express there reaction as OLH talked about, but the nature of anonymous forums with their natural drift to the lowest common denominator requires moderation.

I suspected as much. Perhaps if there were a fixed list of possible reasons, as someone in the other thread suggested about improving the post flagging process?

Tricia D wrote:

I read the forums often and almost never post (yeah, even posting this is terrifying). I would probably be more inclined to participate in a ladies' forum. Sorry Old lady H, not everyone has as thick as skin as you do. I'd love to have more discussions here on MP like the topics in the screenshot La MoMoFace posted and having a ladies' forum might help encourage that.

I'm going to be blunt and explicit.

The reason I have thick skin is because i have had a knife at my throat. At 19. That, because I looked like a 14 year old, walking home in the dark.

Pure, undiluted rage. Not at men. At unjustice toward those who will or cannot stand up for themselves. I've been skinning my knuckles since that day forward, usually with my mouth, but risking my safety also.

That's the extreme, and has very little (but not nothing) to do with seventh grade boy behavior in online forums.

I disagree with those who characterize the men on this thread as wanting the status quo. What I am seeing, over and over, is to apply some knuckle skin across the board, to the whole site.

Folks, this is sooooo vastly better than in the past, when comments being complained about here were the norm, and a sports bra in public was "asking for it" and your rape was partially your fault. In a court of law. There's a reason rapes were (and are) rarely reported. 

Guys? Give yourself some credit here. I sure do, thanks!

Best, H.

I think this is a fine idea, not that my agreement is needed.

I think another idea, that would probably address many of the same problems, and make MP a better place for everyone, would be to make ALL the forums here no-asshole zones and enforce it by stricter moderation. Draw up community guidelines and just delete comments which violate them.

Assholes here have much too loud a voice, same as most of the internet. Hostility toward women, and womens' resulting reluctance to be involved, is just one of the most obvious symptoms. I'm sure there are a lot of men who also don't want to wade through the garbage here.

There are forums where this has been achieved.

You'd think in a community that exists to talk about climbing, where bad advice could literally kill you, that using moderation to keep people safe would be seen as a sensible idea. I cringe when I see the way men sometimes talk about women here, the same way I cringe when I see sketchy practices being advocated. Your right to say whatever you feel like in public should be protected by law, but it doesn't have to be permitted by the community here.

wonderwoman wrote:

I dunno, man.  When I was a RC.com mod, I would always PM the person & leave a note ‘post deleted by WW’.  People gave me shit & swore at me.  Sometimes they earned a time out.  But I never felt comfortable just deleting stuff.

WW and Pete, too, there's a big difference between me choosing to pm someone who is just being a jerk and might think differently of their beer post later, especially when a live body is who they are spitting on, "face to face".

There is also a big difference between the "this post violated" box, so we all know someone crossed a line, and just yanking the things.

Then, all of us should agree there are posts that need to be disappeared asap, and that account barred. I was party to one of those, and Nick admirably hustled it into oblivion very quickly. I wasn't the subject, exactly, but was the one person on at the time, and there to flag it.

I do not think our volunteer admins should have to interact with the really dangerous people, or even the annoying. Sorry, I'm fine with leaving that to Nick, to push the button.

Flagging, sure. All of us can step up to do that.

Best, OLH

wonderwoman wrote:

I dunno, man.  When I was a RC.com mod, I would always PM the person & leave a note ‘post deleted by WW’.  People gave me shit & swore at me.  Sometimes they earned a time out.  But I never felt comfortable just deleting stuff.

Guess I am just a sensitive guy  and not a toughie like you, Tiff ;) We were actually told at the time not to personally engage (with good reasons). We (admins and mods) also did not have the tools ourselves to time out etc.

I think it's a good idea. I find it hard to understand that having a virtual space that makes many if our members more comfortable "increases segregation". Go for it. If you don't like it, don't read it (although I know that's not how it's going to work out).