[stevej]

Facebook stalking goes on anyway, I don't see how this thread promotes it beyond new names appearing in one thread, and as GCW points out, these pictures are out on t'internet anyway, so could be easily found if the intent is there.

Don't know what the hotlink embarrasment is?  I've written a fairly useful guide to posting pictures.

If people's first experiences of UKB are the DF[Birds/Blokes]WGC threads they were probably looking for that sort of content anyway!

Perhaps those pressurising UKB owners should also contact Flickr over the Climbing Girls Group.

Facebook stalking obviously happens but posing "look at what I found on the pooch's FB page" and "I just added (DFBWGC), waiting for her to confirm before I trawl through and repost all her pictures" is a little bit dark.

The hotlinking thing is something I hadn't thought of before Stubbs mentioned it, if a DFB suddenly has hundreds of extra hits to her usually quiet blog and has a look to see where they're from and follows the referrer links she'll find herself in the DFB thread, basically being leered at. Unlikely, but if this is at 4pm australian time then she could always find the drunken 4am ramblings of someone here too.

[Palomides]

Well, I think that UKB should be able to proudly maintain its own standards, keep its own house in order and be able to tell any self-styled internet overlords to go fuck themselves.

Unfortunately this means both locking the thread and telling whoever's been sending you pushy e-mails to get stuffed.

These two actions taken together may not give the desired impression.

[slackline]

Facebook stalking obviously happens but posing "look at what I found on the pooch's FB page" and "I just added (DFBWGC), waiting for her to confirm before I trawl through and repost all her pictures" is a little bit dark.

Any different to "Look what I found on X's new page promoting their calendar that has 12 pictures of birds climbing"?

Any sane person using Facebook who didn't want their pictures being embedded all over t'internet would at a bare minimum configure their account to prevent it from being possible.  If they were really bothered about it they wouldn't post the pictures on line in the first place.

The hotlinking thing is something I hadn't thought of before Stubbs mentioned it, if a DFB suddenly has hundreds of extra hits to her usually quiet blog and has a look to see where they're from and follows the referrer links she'll find herself in the DFB thread, basically being leered at. Unlikely, but if this is at 4pm australian time then she could always find the drunken 4am ramblings of someone here too.

Unless they are seriously promoting themselves I doubt many people bother to look at the amount of  traffic/source of views.  If they are particularly bothered about it then the chances are they are in the business of promoting themselves anyway and actually want that extra traffic.  Again they could prevent embedding (or at least make it awkward) and if it really bothers them not post their pictures on the internet in the first place.

If people (male of female) don't want their pictures posted on forums, then they shouldn't post them on the internet (and should ask their friends who might have taken pictures of them not to do so).   Fact is though that most are taken at photo shoots or competitions where those being pictured know full well that their picture will appear on the net, and it doesn't appear to bother them.

[Stu Littlefair]

This is a tricky decision for you guys, and I think the decision goes to the core of where you want UKB to go in the future. There's no doubt that the DFBWGC thread is offensive to some; it's not misogynistic but it is very laddish and certainly off-putting to women posters.

The issue as I see it are that many of the reasons current posters spend way too much time on UKB are the same reasons preventing it from being a commercial success. It's cliquey, language is vulgar and unrestrained, some of the threads are cruel, disrespectful of potential sponsors and very, very funny. The atmosphere that allows these posts also allows UKB to genuinely friendly in a way UKC can never hope to emulate, it maintains a core of regular posters who are knowledgeable, devoted and provide useful information on any topic. Unlike UKC, you don't get inane threads from people whose instinct is to post on the internet before any other neurons fire ("longest possible route for rope length"? - ffs).

So UKB offers a unique environment which we love, but this enviroment is offputting to many potential forum users; beginners, the shy, women etc. Also, the irreverance and freedom of expression could be a problem for potential advertisers.

Leaving aside UKCs shabby actions on this (and I'm seriously considering de-registering), I think you're going to encounter this conflict between preserving the UKB ecosystem and making cash from UKB more often in the future. Perhaps it's best if you decide now what your priorities are? It's your site now and you can do what you want with it. Locking down DFBWGC is clearly the best commercial move, and I don't think anyone would blame you if you went that way. It will be a (tiny) sad moment for me however, and I hope you don't... 

[Stubbs]

I know you like a good discussion/argument Slackers, but this isn't so much about the pictures and how they were sourced, it's about the context in which they appear on this website.

Saying people can choose not to look at them if they don't want to reminds me of this

[jfw]

jo wood (ie me)

i appreciate the humour of a lot of the banter - but we had a bit of this discussion when ben p stepped in to defend lisa rands.

basically the argument "its about celebrating women who climb"

doesn't hold water when some of the "birds" in question are then subject to massive condemnation for looking like a good climber (i.e. having muscle, having veins in their arms), or even just for not being a classic beauty / supermodel type.

 there are a number of comments where if you were the subject of the picture, you would be pretty upset / insulted to read them.

i ticked the "i don't care" option in the poll - but I might reconsider and agree with a no comments version 

[Barratt]

In the spirit of self moderation, why not all agree not to post comments?

I'm not a contributor to the thread, but based on the previous replies its clear that the main (only) problem is that of the comments. However it may not be possible to turn them off, nor for the owners to moderate them.

A simple solution that might be worth a go...

[slackline]

I know you like a good discussion/argument Slackers, but this isn't so much about the pictures and how they were sourced, it's about the context in which they appear on this website.

Saying people can choose not to look at them if they don't want to reminds me of this

Wow, the flying saucer has escaped from the picture frame!

[lagerstarfish]

I have made the occasional contribution to the BFBWGC thread. I post mainly because the reactions of other viewers amuse me.

Contrary to the impression I might give via my internet rantings, I do not spend my life learing at photos of women. In fact, I do feel that the thread is slightly offensive and inappropriate. It's very existence intrigues me and makes me want to experiment with it.

I have a misanthropic streak that I try to only let out in a controlled manner with a minimum of harm to others. Usually this is fully managed by taking the piss out of other climbers at the crag (which they also enjoy - only coz they don't know that I really do mean what I say), taking the piss out of Jasper whenever possible and in extreme cases going out of my way to pick arguments with idiots/bullies. I'm not sure that my indirect offending on That Thread is as satisfying as being a bit of a dick in real life. Overall, I think that the balance of harm caused to others vs the amount of cruel twisted satisfaction gained by me posting on That Thread fails to justify it's existence as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps now is the time to release a free version of BirdBot 2.1 ?



So.....

by some amusing twist, I noticed that my DFBWGC video on YouTube was getting quite a few hits from an Itallian climbing forum. Further investigation led me to the thread from which I have extracted the alleged results from BirdBot. It has amused me greatly (sad, I Know).

The details you say?

512 pages of foreign misogyny

http://www.fuorivia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=829&sid=bd5bb39eacd918bdce9902dd3a763297

[Steve R]

Re. photos only idea - The comments on the thread are often funny as hell and it's them that make the thread worth looking at really.  The pictures alone would be quite dull.  It's a shame if offence and upset could be caused to the people in the photos.  Take your photos down then or grow some thicker skin (ideally a nice olive tone and not too veiny).

It's a sad day when the overlords roll over to softness and pc bullshit like this.

[Steve R]

In fact, I do feel that the thread is slightly offensive and inappropriate.

It certainly is and that's why it can be brilliant and funny too. Plus some of the subjects are genuinely stunnning which is worth celebrating.  Anyone can see the whole concept of the thread (even its title) is laced with irony and the comments often are too.

[chris05]

  Take your photos down then or grow some thicker skin (ideally a nice olive tone and not too veiny).

 

[tc]

Keep the thread, it's funny and irreverent which is something that is often sadly lacking in climbing. And two fingers to UKC  . Remember: for political correctness to triumph it only requires that sensible people do nothing!

[SA Chris]

I know you like a good discussion/argument Slackers, but this isn't so much about the pictures and how they were sourced, it's about the context in which they appear on this website.

Saying people can choose not to look at them if they don't want to reminds me of this

A dead fit bird reading a book?

[Steve R]

A dead fit bird reading a book?

no, I think he means her ancestor giving someone the finger, MR presumably?

[slackline]

A dead fit bird reading a book?

no, I think he means her ancestor giving someone the finger, MR presumably?

Didn't notice Stubbs giving the one finger salute there.  (the flying saucer is cooler though).

[SA Chris]

I like the guy in the painting checking out the elephants ass.

Am I allowed to say ass? What if the elephant is female, reads this and is offended? Will it forget about it?

Ah bugger, this is complicated.

[Barratt]

A dead fit bird reading a book?

no, I think he means her ancestor giving someone the finger, MR presumably?

Didn't notice Stubbs giving the one finger salute there.  (the flying saucer is cooler though).

is that mrs slack-line in a gas mask below?

[slackline]

There's an elephant in that picture?

[Barratt]

In the far left hand bottom pic... if thats an elephant, and not a lady wearing a gas mask, i'm a giraffe, eh!?

[slackline]

I wondered where my mask had gone the other week, now I know!

[galpinos]

Simon, could you not just weight the importance of the comments by the comparative fitness of the respondent to get the definitive answer?

[shark]

Simon, could you not just weight the importance of the comments by the comparative fitness of the respondent to get the definitive answer?

[peanut]

OK, so I don't  post much on here, but I do read quite a few threads. Scuse me for chipping in. Seems to me that DFBWGC thread is a polarising issue ("no shit!", I hear you say!) with one side defending their right to 'freedom of speech' (or somesuch) and the other objecting to the objectification of women, particularly the comments. Not wanting to be a fence-sitter, it seems that the latter group is deeply offended by the actions of the former, whereas the opposite isn't necessarily true. Would those of you who defend freedom of speech really want to do so at the expense and humiliation of your fellow climbers? If you'd make your comments to these people face-to-face, then good for you, but I bet most of us (myself included) would rather not. Most of us are chicken shits in this respect and hence spend way too much time on forums! Surely this self-restraint should apply here?

[lagerstarfish]

Anyone can see the whole concept of the thread (even its title) is laced with irony and the comments often are too.

What is this "irony" that you speak of?

(Jasper says that it is a bit like coppery)