Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > New restrictions on topics in stewardship
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author     Message
AA+
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16812 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostMon Dec 16, 2019 6:37 pm 
Over the years we've allowed a bit of latitude for topics in stewardship.  As long as topics had some relevance to the outdoors we allowed them in stewardship. Going forward this is going to change with a much higher burden of outdoor relevance required.  I have closed the global warming thread and splinter topic(s) to restore focus on outdoor discussion. Other topics will be closed to the extent discussion does not merit a place in stewardship. I'm sure this will disappoint some but feel we have reached the tipping point where too much energy is being invested in non hiking related topics in stewardship and not enough focus on other parts of the forum.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2107 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostMon Dec 16, 2019 8:15 pm 
OK, but when we enter the next ice age without warning, we'll know who to blame.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 15194 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostMon Dec 16, 2019 8:50 pm 
Thank you, the discussion was perhaps a good idea when it started but deteriorated into a repetitive, boring, personal, flame war. Started bleeding into other threads. Perhaps I can start posting trip reports again. If I can remember how to post pix.

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11799 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((>
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 12:13 am 
Thank you very much, Tom. up.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Brushwork
Food truck



Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Washington
Brushwork
Food truck
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 12:16 am 
Good call!

--------------
When I grow up I wanna play.
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 10:26 am 
Ridiculous. Let posters decide to read, or post,  or not.

"Please shut everyone up because I can't control my reading or posting behavior" is a position indicating yet again that the person doesn't wish to control their choices or actions. (It's like the ludicrous 'mute' button on some sites because readers don't even have control over their own emotions. )

The move is an abrogation of responsibility for dealing with folks whose methods are personal attacks. Pre-punishment of the innocent is no better here than it is for the larger population concerning the topics being discussed.

1) Hold the folks 'bleeding' the arguments into other threads responsible for their bleeding. Like wise for 'flame war' complainers whose arguments consist of personal attacks and ad homs.

2) If you don't want to read or post in a thread, choose not to read or post in it. There is nothing more simple or inherently just than this fact.

3) Given the number of other topics where AGW is held to be a reason or basis for 'conservation' moves, regulation, or work, keeping the discussion out of the pages will bias the threads. If it is held to be a reason for some action, then discussing that reason is perfectly legitimate.

You've got folks like Cyclopath openly posting stuff specifically and with full intent in order to make trouble, concentrate on that behavior.

Quote:
I know this is going to trigger some people.  Sorry.

Quote:
I knew this would set someone off.   smile.gif

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8031017


This move is a capitulation to the folks poisoning the well. You're supporting the heckler's veto with this move. It's a mistake. Shutting down discussion because some folks cannot post respectably is surrendering to their poor judgment rather than restricting the bad actors for it. The people making problems now get an official policy win.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2107 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 11:33 am 
I would agree that because global warming is so controversial, it should not be discussed in any way on this forum.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 12:03 pm 
then lets be consistent and it should not be permitted in any way.

Not allowing something because some folks cannot contain themselves is poor practice. Sanction the bad actors, not the discussion.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
dave allyn
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Posts: 347 | TRs | Pics
dave allyn
Member
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 1:03 pm 
I believe it's Tom's website to do with as he pleases. Most websites have some kind of posting policy. If that doesn't work for you, go to a website that meets your needs.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 1:20 pm 
No one has suggested differently.

The issue is, will the administration follow logically sustainable practices or drift into being influenced by folks poisoning the well and shutting down perfectly valid discussions, or worse, into one sided pseudo openness.

It is sad to see open discussions shut down on the basis of the 'hecklers veto', rather than sanctioning the responsible parties. Especially coming on the heels of one such poster openly starting a thread with full intent to cause the issues Tom refers to.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16812 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 3:50 pm 
Comes down to how much energy is invested in topics that are essentially debating political views with little to no hiking relevance.  How many posts did you make in the GW thread in the 2 weeks the calendar voting was open?  How many votes did you cast?  The ratio equates to infinity for most posting in the GW topic.  Nuff said.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 4:05 pm 
Debating actual science is not debating politics,  and the inference that the two are identical is part of the problem. I'm pretty sure that if I pull stats for the entire rest of the forum, the idea that a GW thread is taking up undue posting won't hold much water.

Since i have no interest in the calendar, I didn't vote.

Since this is going to be the deal moving forward, I look forward to a demonstration of consistency... and not one sided selectivity on the numerous stewardship/access topics where the forbidden topic will be inevitably present. After all, it would not be logically defensible to disallow claims on stewardship, access, or regulation which are alleged to be based in science to be critiqued using science.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16812 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 4:23 pm 
Sure, feel free to point out the threads where topics are essentially political debate. And don't get going on the claim that it isn't politics and just debating science. Everyone knows that's BS.

Oh, and yeah it's funny how almost everyone involved with the global warming "scientific debate" has zero interest in things like the calendar.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2107 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 5:37 pm 
The rules do state "Outdoor related political discussion should be limited to the stewardship forum.  Other political discussion is off limits at NWHikers.

Should that be changed?

Were those debating in the GW thread not complying with this rule or were they complying but the rule has changed?

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11799 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((>
PostTue Dec 17, 2019 5:42 pm 
Tom wrote:
How many posts did you make in the GW thread in the 2 weeks the calendar voting was open?  How many votes did you cast?

That's an interesting question, Tom.
If you look at the names of the top 20 posters here - those who have the greatest number of posts - only about one third of them voted on the calendar. Several of those who did not participate in the voting have been absent for some time.
The number of those members whose names appeared on an almost daily basis in the GW thread who did not participate in the voting is woefully and disproportionately short.

It is, all comments above notwithstanding, rather telling.

Again, thanks very much. up.gif

BK

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > New restrictions on topics in stewardship
  Happy Birthday Matt!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy