[Boots]

From my view moderation here is well, mild to moderate. I haven't seen too many threads locked down lately as opposed to in the past, one's like Iron mentioned. Generally, I think people have good intentions even under those circumstances. I've been coming here leisurely for some time. When it comes to anything regarding hikes or equipment, I check around in here first. I do miss some of the aurora that surrounded this place before. People used to be passionate about helping others to enjoy our outdoor spaces but now seem a tad bitter about overuse. That's just my impression.

[Daryl]

I don’t have any complaints with the quality of moderation, but I do disagree with the style. It’s so sad to see that certain topics cannot be discussed without people losing all control. Adults are topic restricted here because a few people do not know how to disagree respectfully. Just my $.02, rather than ban certain topics, why don’t we ban the hateful disrespectful people? The website would be better as the out of control disrespectful people will no longer be in any threads. People should be able to disagree on ANY topic without it turning into a name calling contest and/or nazi references and/or what I call the stupid generalization (if you don't agree with me you are stupid). Should... When another hobby dominated my life a site like this that I visited allowed any discussion, and just banned the problem people. It actually worked really well. A lot more respect all around the site. Either way, I think this is a great, well run website. I love that it's here. I learn things here almost daily (not always hiking related) and if nothing changes I'm still a happy camper.

[Tom_Sjolseth]

That is the nature of the beast. Look at Facebook. You have people calling other people that they don't agree with 'asshats', 'twits', and 'morons' on a regular basis because they disagree with their opinion - often it's political or religious opinion. These people simply can't disagree with others without hurling insults at one another. They can't systematically debate the substance of the issue, they can only call people names to make themselves feel better when someone says something they don't agree with. It's unfortunate, but prevalent - people can't control themselves. Someone hurls an insult at someone else, then that person hurls an insult back, then it becomes a big free-for-all. It's weird too, because I never hear anyone calling anyone else these things face-to-face. Social media and discussion forums give people a voice they otherwise wouldn't use because there is no immediate consequence for their actions. Even more so when people can be anonymous and use avatars and not their real names. It's always been this way, it always will be, and that's why discussion forums like NWHikers needs to place a ban on the discussion of certain topics.

[Tom_Sjolseth]

[iron]

[Tom_Sjolseth]

Just curious, because when I was not happy with the way management was dealing with certain trolls on this site, I took my trip reports down one-by-one (by myself, with no assistance from Tom) so surely cartman couldn't be referring to me? Furthermore, if cartman was talking about me, and he has a problem with the way I handled things, and he thinks my pulling my own content was the result of a temper tantrum, it would seem like confronting me about it would be the best way to get to the bottom of it, no? Yet, I saw him just last Saturday and he didn't say a word to me. He could have easily said what he said on this thread to me, but he chose not to for some reason - he chose to post it here. That does not seem entirely constructive, more like maybe he's even spiting me for something? Maybe he's just angry that someone called him a brownshirt in one particular thread, or perhaps it's something else??? We did have an e-mail exhange about lists the other day, and I said something he may not have liked (but that I still stand behind).... Crap rolls downhill and perhaps it makes him feel good to take it out on someone. Again, this is all presuming he's referring to me above. Which goes back to the points I just made about people saying whatever they feel like online, but not in person. It's hard for me to understand, because my online self and offline self are one in the same - perhaps that's why I use my real name. If I don't feel like I can tell you in person, I'm not going to say it online. Your mileage might vary, and if it does, then maybe it's easy to understand why having an online discussion about politics/religion/__insert subject here__ easily devolves into disrespect and childish name-calling.

[Damian]

Well put Tom and Daryl. I appreciate the thought that goes into these posts and the great feedback we receive about the site and how it can be improved. We could ban people instead of topics but many who struggle with containing their emotions on certain topics are otherwise great contributors to this site. We don’t want to lose the contributions of these folks. Banning people rarely happens and only in extreme situations. None of the moderators wanted to put restrictions on topics. But since we have, there is no doubt that certain enemies are now friends and the site works better. Some critics of site policies may not have been around when the over focus on certain topics was clearly adjusting the site complexion in a negative way. This resulted in much soul searching over several years before rules were implemented. We are accused of not applying the rules evenly but you have humans moderating this site. None of us read every post. And the decision to step in with moderation is highly subjective with no two mods or situations being the same. In general I think we are quite generous in tollerating situations where the boundries are tested. IMO the most effective and positive moderation tool we have are the regular posters who provide excellent contributions to this site and are not afraid to speak up before the mods step in.

[Hulksmash]

[Daryl]

obviously my $.02, but people do what they can get away with, and the more they get away with it the more they do it. If i disagreed in real life like some people disagree on the internet (you're just a stupid nazi woman hating racist) I'd face consequences such as a black eye, getting kicked out of walmart, losing friends or getting fired from my job. On the internet there is no consequence, so it's encouraged. If there was a consequence maybe things would be different, and maybe we could talk any topic we wanted like adults?

[Slugman]

[Slugman]

We could use an "app" that a person could choose to use, that would rephrase things to make them more polite. If someone posted "F you you asshat moron", it would instead post "I respectfully disagree with your position on this topic". I'd buy that for a dollar!

[LadyÆsa]

[Damian]

Great idea Sluggo. In the meantime, for a buck a post I'll sanitize yours. Five bucks for the heavy duty jobs

[Tom_Sjolseth]

That is pretty good, Sluggo. Thanks for the laugh!

[Slugman]

Damian: Am I made of money? Tom S, your recent Facebook post about politeness versus anonymity really got me thinking. I don't think you were talking about me, but you could have been. I'm going to write down a list of stock phrases with their "generic" counterparts, then use the stock phrases instead of the slang terms. "You are a moron" will become "I don't think you have really thought this issue through." "Racist a-hole" will morph into "You will be taken more seriously if you express respect for people of every race and gender." "I hope you die of cancer of the genitals during a world-wide morphine shortage" will become "My, what an interesting world view you have. But I cannot share it."