[user deactivated]

I recall having a dream about that Paul, grimer was there commentating on that shipwreck of a flake while seb traversed the tiger wearing a grey turtle neck and shouting up ‘you’re on a top rope’. In the distance half a dolphin climbed demon rib then Franco turned up in a big yellow T-shirt with a H printed on it, took hands with the cast of Hard Grit and they all skipped off up the yellow brick road. At this point a ukc zepllin passes overhead with the message remember kids, have fun, obey the rules and respect the rock.

Disappointingly I then woke up and took 3 aspirin, 2 paracetamol and went back to sleep. It’s really hard to re-access those fun dreams isn’t it.

[Fiend]

Incidentally I have been banned for my post, despite it being non-insulting, moderately-languaged, and a fair criticism of a public article posted with publicly-accessible comments (as well as an attempt to stand up for and promote good ethics/style, rather than criticism for the sake of it).

I really don't think that is remotely acceptable TBH. And I hope no-one on here (or for that matter, there), does.

[Johnny Brown]

That's pathetic.

[36chambers]

Looks like you actually got banned for this comment

Worth noting that I didn't read the article - I'm not interested in the Franco/TheMoors/H10/whatever publicity machine - and I certainly will never read any replies to my comment on it (my modus operandi these days), although I did take care to make sure my comment was palatable and straightforward.

[Teappleby]

"Fiend has not been blocked just for his comment on this thread. The reasons are many and varied and go back over the last 11 years. This would be the 4th time he has been banned in that period for a variety of different indiscretions.

He was on borrowed time but the thing that tipped the balance was his public admission elsewhere that he had no intention of engaging in debate on this thread after his opening post. Most of his previous posts in the last few months have been characterised by single negative posts with no follow up. That is not engaging in debate but is a negative campaign and not one that I am not willing to fund.

Alan"

Comment from Alan James on the issue.

[Plattsy]

Fiend what are you doing? I can't believe you thought you could express an opinion without entering a debate or responding to responses. Come on you know the drill.

It also appears to be ok for Alan to have a "negative" view of your posts but not you to have a "negative" view of UKC articles.

Standard double standards.

[Fiend]

Alan is not correct in that post.

Firstly my previous bannings are for actual reasons: a post that mocked an advertiser and a post that mildly insulted the news staff after a spoiler news item. That is different to being banned without a reason as in this case.

Secondly there isn't, and should not be, any obligation whatsoever to engage in debate after posting a comment. My comment was not intended to be inflammatory however I aware that people will overreact to criticism or posts they disagree with and often become personally abusive towards me, and I think it is within my rights to choose to not to view that.

Thirdly there is absolutely no negative campaign and that is a complete lie. As I said a few posts ago, my comment was a criticism of an article that highlighted and promoted weaker ethics, and "an attempt to stand up for and promote good ethics/style". I have posted occasional negative comments and occasional positive comments as well as other sparse posts, and there is no campaign either way. If Alan had been paying attention to my posts over the years he would know full well that I have a strong ethical standpoint and often express that - and have the right to continue expressing that on a public forum unless I cross the line into insults / abuse / advertiser detriment.

Edit:

Fourthly it does not seem appropriate to use (mis-)perceived intentions gleaned from elsewhere to make judgements on the merits of a critical but in-offensive post. Post should be judged on their own merits and acceptability, not what the moderator thinks of the person or their intention.

Fifthly, it was quite likely my intention to engage in civilised debate and discussion in due time, however when I see a warning like "fiend getting a load of shit", then it's natural that I am going to choose to avoid that discussion.

[Offwidth]

That's pathetic.

I don't think so.... it's supposedly Fiends 4th ban... If you keep playing on the edge of what's acceptable in the site rules it becomes almost inevitable. If he said he had read the article and just expressed his disagreement he wouldn't have been banned. It's maybe a bit unfair in a double jepody sense at the most.

I do think their rules (or application) need changing a bit. I think the pent up herd negativity epitomised by anonymous dislikes and passive aggressive behaviour (all within the rules) is hurting the site.  Someone disagreed with me and did some data mining that was supposed to show me I was wrong but in fact found out the posting traffic has more than halved in the last few years (after being steady the previous decade).

[user deactivated]

Glad to see you’re creating a bit of controversy Fiend. It looks like my dream was more than symbolic 😂

[Fiend]

I'm not glad. Controversy in something like this is just as undesirable as anything else Alan mis-attributes to me. I'd much rather be celebrating an article about a host of Caff E7 onsights. Actually I was going to post something generalised about onsighting ideas on here, just as part of normal discussion.

Offwidth: As I said above, my previous bans were for comprehensible reasons consistent with running a public but commercial site. The posts that caused them were again not made to provoke controversy or "play" on anything, and the response was heavy-handed, but the reasoning was clear and I did not attempt to repeat similar posts. If my post this time had been a similar actual transgression i.e. being directly mildly offensive to the author or mocking a commercial / advertising aspect (not feasible in this case of course), then yes your logic would apply. I do not believe I have to read the full article to express my disagreement with the introduction (which I did read), nor the concept of the article. It's an article about / promoting headpointing. I expressed a disagreement with promoting headpointing. The end.

[user deactivated]

Well controversy if that’s what we call it, has always been a healthy part of climbing. Just as if all that was ever there was Caff E7 articles it would soon become tedious to. Maybe I should say I’m glad you expressed your opinion which seems to be controversial 🙄

[Ged]

especially promoting the exact opposite direction to how climbing progression should be going.

Sorry but I find this sort of comment really annoying.  I'm interested in onsight climbing, I enjoy it, and up until I gravitated more towards sport and Boulder recently, that was my main approach to climbing.  I also occasionally toproped stuff. 

Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah.  I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.

I have lots of respect for people climbing hard stuff onsight, and I do agree that a route being onsighted is an improvement in style.  But that's not to say that it doesn't have it's place in climbing, and people aren't entitle to do it if they want to.  I find the idea that you think your opinion is the most correct bordering on arrogant. 

[Fiend]

That's a difference of opinion, but I can't ban you for saying it.

I have a strong opinion myself, and I express it strongly. 

[Ged]

I'm not saying you can't have a different opinion, I just object to you stating that opinion as fact!

[andy popp]

After my own fallings out with him I view getting on the wrong side of Alan as a badge of honour (childish, I know, but I don't care).

But more seriously, I applaud you Fiend for standing up for an ethical position. I thought the article unbalanced, with a very heavy concentration on tactics/strategies etc. and very little discussion of psychology - motivations, rewards/returns (including the possibility that these might be negative rather than positive) - and effectively no discussion of history or ethics. I'm unashamedly elitist. The ideal in climbing should always be towards an improvement in style, particularly as gear improves, and the level at which headpointing is "acceptable" should be a moving target; it shouldn't sit today where it sat in the 1990s. The article had no discussion of standards and thus tacitly argues that headpointing can be appropriate at any grade.

[Offwidth]

I'm not glad. Controversy in something like this is just as undesirable as anything else Alan mis-attributes to me. I'd much rather be celebrating an article about a host of Caff E7 onsights. Actually I was going to post something generalised about onsighting ideas on here, just as part of normal discussion.

Offwidth: As I said above, my previous bans were for comprehensible reasons consistent with running a public but commercial site. The posts that caused them were again not made to provoke controversy or "play" on anything, and the response was heavy-handed, but the reasoning was clear and I did not attempt to repeat similar posts. If my post this time had been a similar actual transgression i.e. being directly mildly offensive to the author or mocking a commercial / advertising aspect (not feasible in this case of course), then yes your logic would apply. I do not believe I have to read the full article to express my disagreement with the introduction (which I did read), nor the concept of the article. It's an article about / promoting headpointing. I expressed a disagreement with promoting headpointing. The end.

You can argue with me all you like but you were banned and pretty unaware if you didn't see it coming. That is very much An End. You could have chosen to just deal with the issues. How did saying you didn't need to read the article help get over your ideas? Not picking fights IS one of the rules.

I'd absolutely rather you were not banned: the site needs more climbing discussion by people like you who actually know stuff and have climbed loads and very widely. As someone who has onsighted the vast majority of my routes I don't mind articles supporting headpointing but am concerned with headpointing on sensitive routes (on that subject Adam might need to talk to Cherry to hear his logic about TAS) and that people need to understand the safety properly of roped solos just using a shunt, as Franco was way too blase about that (in great contrast to Dave's video)

[Teaboy]

The biggest problem I had with the article was how dull it was. It should have hit all my sweet spots; cutting edge climbing, interesting author, ethical murkiness and lots of opportunity for anecdote and history. Instead, after the first paragraph, it descended into a wordy Haynes manual of how to top rope.

[Fiend]

I was aware that you could get banned for insulting an article's author, or for threatening the commercial / advertising aspect of the site. I was not aware that it was remotely possible to get banned for expressing a criticism or disagreeing with an article, that simply wouldn't occur to me as an option.

I don't know what you mean by "chosen to deal with the issues". I dealt with the issues of my previously actually offensive / detrimental posts by not doing them. As before, I wasn't picking any fights. I think I am quite capable of being offensive / obnoxious / provocative enough for it to be clear when I am picking fights (which I don't bother with any more).

[petejh]

After my own fallings out with him I view getting on the wrong side of Alan as a badge of honour (childish, I know, but I don't care).

But more seriously, I applaud you Fiend for standing up for an ethical position. I thought the article unbalanced, with a very heavy concentration on tactics/strategies etc. and very little discussion of psychology - motivations, rewards/returns (including the possibility that these might be negative rather than positive) - and effectively no discussion of history or ethics. I'm unashamedly elitist. The ideal in climbing should always be towards an improvement in style, particularly as gear improves, and the level at which headpointing is "acceptable" should be a moving target; it shouldn't sit today where it sat in the 1990s. The article had no discussion of standards and thus tacitly argues that headpointing can be appropriate at any grade.

I agree with this entirely.

[Johnny Brown]

Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah.  I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.

It's context.

I can understand the article. It's Franco enthusing about what he does and I don't have a big problem with that. What he misses is that his is a very niche pursuit. It's actually vanishingly rare that you get someone who is both talented and dedicated enough to be a top climber and also obsessed enough with scrubbing up mossy bits of rock in obscure places. There are much easier ways to raise your climbing profile nowadays. There's also the fact that potential for this barely exists in developed areas like the Peak. 

The other point he swerves is that toproping that doesn't end in a successful headpoint is just toproping. So in presenting a piece like this to the UKC masses, the likely result is not a rash of quality new routes. It's punters spending all weekend thrashing about on a famous E8 they can't touch. These routes are fragile and are already showing wear. Despite what folk always raise about failed onsights also being potentially damaging (to the placements mainly) the barrier to entry is far, far higher. Any idiot can kick a pebble off on top-rope, just the thing for a wet weekend. Whereas you would be unlikely to get on damp rock onsight, and struggle to over-brush a hold during a sight lead.

I chose not to pursue headpointing because, in the Peak at least, it was obvious the quality lines had been done, but very few repeat ascents had even matched the original in style. It seemed a far more obvious challenge to onsight these classics than to ferret about unearthing crap new routes destined for obscurity. 

[ashtond6]

Fiend the victim! Fiend the hard done by! I genuinely cannot believe what I am reading   

Regularly abusing random users on photo comments (which I cannot prove as he is blocked) & direct abusive emails via UKCs messaging tool.

& ethical position please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking

[jwi]

& ethical position please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking

eh.... we usually call following written and unwritten rules about sportsmanship, fairness, respect etc. in sport “ethics”? Is there another name for it? Or does anything go in sport because it is not as bad as genocide? (<- OMG, I can't believe this is not a strawman! You actually wrote that there cannot be ethical positions in sport because of deforestation!)

[ashtond6]

& ethical position please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking

eh.... we usually call following written and unwritten rules about sportsmanship, fairness, respect etc. in sport “ethics”? Is there another name for it? Or does anything go in sport because it is not as bad as genocide? (<- OMG, I can't believe this is not a strawman! You actually wrote that there cannot be ethical positions in sport because of deforestation!)

haha you are right, grade A strawman - sorry about that.
I just find it amusing in climbing

[Will Hunt]

Fiend the victim! Fiend the hard done by! I genuinely cannot believe what I am reading   

Regularly abusing random users on photo comments (which I cannot prove as he is blocked) & direct abusive emails via UKCs messaging tool.

& ethical position please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking

Are you still bent out of shape because Fiend puntered you a couple of times a year ago? Get a grip. Fuck me, I ought to a sobbing wreck at that rate.

[ashtond6]

Fiend the victim! Fiend the hard done by! I genuinely cannot believe what I am reading   

Regularly abusing random users on photo comments (which I cannot prove as he is blocked) & direct abusive emails via UKCs messaging tool.

& ethical position please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking

Are you still bent out of shape because Fiend puntered you a couple of times a year ago? Get a grip. Fuck me, I ought to a sobbing wreck at that rate.

No, because I'm sick of seeing him abuse randoms & myself & find it off that no one sticks up for themselves to him.
Goes way back before the puntering, but thanks for the observation