[Mick Ryan]

What did I do long after that? Offered to send you a load of boulddering videos to help fund this site....gratis, at no charge.

Did you? I honestly don't remember that. And if you did, what does that mean? That really you're just a luuurvely, giving guy? Even after evil bubba banned you? Awww!

Let me jog your memory......I can if you wish post your reply.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Ryan [mailto:rockfax@yahoo.com]
Sent: 27 September 2004 05:32
To: bubba@ukbouldering.com
Cc: administration@ukbouldering.com
Subject: From Mick R

Hi Bubba,

Read the funding thread about funding UKbouldering.

If you like I could send you 50 to 100 West Coast Pimp
videos to help the cause.  Not sure how much you could
charge for them....a tenner perhaps. You could have
them for nothing and we could perhaps split the
shipping.

Have you considered a PAYPAL donate button on your
site? Easy and free to set up.

One of the problems with using merchandising alone to
raise funds, and I'm sure you are aware of this, is
the initial set up costs, and you get an initial
torrent of sales and then a trickle.

Have you considered a mix of methods?

- merchandising
- selling bouldering guidebooks, dvds etc
- paypal donate button (maybe a cc one too)
- some limited banner adverts

all the best,

Mick

[Mick Ryan]

i'll jog your memory: mick was being a cunt.

Nice use of language Dave. Apart from being the least negative person you will ever have the pleasure of meeting, and make no mistake we will meet, I'll jog yours.

If someone comes on an internet forum and starts telling big slanderous whoppers about a company, a business, what do you expect them to do. In the Rockfax episode several years ago the site administration should have emailed Rockfax in the first instant. When we catch them that is the policy at UKC. That didn't happen here....the anti-Rockfax brigade got into full flow (for some reason many seem to think that Rockfax is this big corporate behemoth when it is still run out of a small room on the third floor of terrace in Sheffield).

I'll repeat, Alan came on and replied to the accusations, as did I.

Then I, as is my want started to take the piss in a lighthearted manner. I didn't slander, I didn't lie, I took the piss. The thin skins around here couldn't take the heat.

What is the policy around here if an individual makes accusations against a business? Do you just leave it? Do you email the business?

It's your site, your responsibility, I hope you have a policy and apply it even-handedly.

Peace bros,

Mick

[Ru]

This forum is like having a conversation with an extended group of mates down the pub - everyone is generally good natured. If you are chatting about a mate that's present, and someone new comes over and the first thing they say is something insulting then generally they're going to get a fairly sour reception. Which is what has happened.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

If you are chatting about a mate that's present, and someone new comes over and the first thing they say is something insulting then generally they're going to get a fairly sour reception. Which is what has happened.

Well he didn't do that though, he banned them from posting, maybe indefinitely. He barred them from the pub, to use your analogy.

If Bubba ever moderated a larger forum then he'd soon learn that over-the-top reactions like that create far more problems than they solve. In this smaller group it may help maintain the select band of hand-picked and like-minded posters, which is probably his intention, but UKB will never develop the breadth and diversity of opinion that UKC has simply because it has too few contributors. However it will probably also not attract the spam, the crap posts and the agro since it is easier to moderate and keep a check on. For me the down-side of UKB is that it always comes across as a group of mates chatting to each other who are not very welcoming to newcomers (by virtue of the cliquey nature if not the actual replies) and especially not to those they feel a bit threatened by - I was particularly disappointed that my request for bouldering information a couple of months ago received a stone wall response - that is something that would never happen on UKC. However I can also see that UKB is very important for many of the people who post here.

Ultimately though the "my forum's better than yours" claims are pretty pointless.

Maybe Bubba's judgement on Baluchi was good though since it took us over 50 moved and deleted posts to ban him from UKC, I just can't see that "strike first ask questions later" working every time and, as mentioned above, it is not a technique I could get away with on UKC.

I have a small bone to pick with Mr Ryan as well -

It is a semi-detached not a terrace!!!

Alan

[Bubba]

Let me jog your memory......I can if you wish post your reply.

Off you go then. I've dug out the email and my reply was basically a polite way of saying "no, I don't want your out of date vids that nobody wants any more". Have you not noticed the glaring fact that I didn't follow it up. Wonder why?

[Bubba]

Well he didn't do that though, he banned them from posting, maybe indefinitely. He barred them from the pub, to use your analogy.

What's the difference? I'm the "landlord" and they've been barred from the pub if you like.

If Bubba ever moderated a larger forum then he'd soon learn that over-the-top reactions like that create far more problems than they solve.

Well we see what this place is like some years down the line. I post on several much bigger forums than ukclimbing.com and they are moderated in a similar fashion to how I'm doing mine.

In this smaller group it may help maintain the select band of hand-picked and like-minded posters, which is probably his intention

No, not at all - nobody is hand picked, anyone can sign up. But when they do they have to be civil and fit in. It's nothing to do with who they are, it's more how they act. I have a good idea of how I want this place to be and I enforce that how I will.

but UKB will never develop the breadth and diversity of opinion that UKC has simply because it has too few contributors.

I think what you mean is that it will never develop to the size of ukc. Well that's just fine by me - I'd rather run a smaller place that is how I want it than a larger free for all. I also know that building a quality community takes time.

However it will probably also not attract the spam, the crap posts and the agro since it is easier to moderate and keep a check on.

Hopefully, yes.

Let me re-iterate that one of the main reasons I started ukb was because I was fed up with the alternatives, which at the time was only ukc. I used to post on your forums a lot, but when I perceived it going downhill, I decided to start up somewhere which was more what I wanted. My perception of it "going downhill" was probably your perception of it being successful.

I was particularly disappointed that my request for bouldering information a couple of months ago received a stone wall response - that is something that would never happen on UKC.

Wasn't that because the general feeling was that people here wanted to support another guidebook project?

Ultimately though the "my forum's better than yours" claims are pretty pointless.

I agree, it's totally subjective.

it is not a technique I could get away with on UKC.

Why, what would happen?

[dobbin]

(apocalypse)

Mines a pint please landlord.

[andy popp]

I still remember with pride the day my own gold-embossed invitation to join was hand delivered by Bubba's personal flunkies

[lanky suction]

I still remember with pride the day my own gold-embossed invitation to join was hand delivered by Bubba's personal flunkies

You lucky thing! I've only just joined, and was made to attend a dodgy ceremony with one trouser leg rolled up. I can't tell you the rest, on pain of death.

[dobbin]

We wanted him, thats why. You applied to join - theres a difference. I have pictures of Bubba back in the day with Alsatians. Thats how I got in.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

I have a good idea of how I want this place to be and I enforce that how I will.

Fine. But if you run a bigger forum you have to allow lots of stuff that you don't necessarily want. By doing that you get lots more stuff that you wouldn't necessarily expect. It's a trade off though and both options have their merits.

Referring to an earlier comment you made a comment about us treating guest posters as second class citizens: presumably this was reference to my frequent moans about anonymous posters. Well guest posters and anon posters are completely different things. 99% of guest posters are not anonymous, just unregistered and probably first timers, but they usually sign their names. 99% of deliberately anonymous posters are not guests, just registered users who have logged out because they want to say something that they wouldn't dare saying face-to-face. The guests actually add greatly to the forums since they enable virtually anyone to take part without having to come up with a password etc..., however the down side is that we sometimes have the anon trouble makers. Again, it is a trade off.

but UKB will never develop the breadth and diversity of opinion that UKC has simply because it has too few contributors.

I think what you mean is that it will never develop to the size of ukc.

No, I meant breadth and diversity of opinions.

I was particularly disappointed that my request for bouldering information a couple of months ago received a stone wall response - that is something that would never happen on UKC.

Wasn't that because the general feeling was that people here wanted to support another guidebook project?

I see. So everyone is welcome except those working on unapproved guidebook projects.

At the risk of getting massively off topic, what you touch on here is an example of one of the biggest failings of the trad guidebook system which some are still hanging on to. They see route descriptions as their main asset and protect them from public viewing until they can assemble them into some retail-able form. This means endless trading to-and-fro between approved individuals to carry out the various stages of checking. As a procedure it does lead to good quality information but while the Froggatt guidebook 'script' is being protected from public exposure and passed around, we have produced a new guidebook with all our descriptions continually open for public debate, and with the same quality of information.

it is not a technique I could get away with on UKC.

Why, what would happen?

This thread is evidence of the fact that banning people from Rocktalk is not something that we can take lightly. There is even a blog specially set up and dedicated to the moderating on Rocktalk. Curious when you consider that the moderating is way less strict than on here.

Alan

[Mick Ryan]

I'm just aghast at the amount and the popularity of comment there is about UKClimbing.com at UKB and at that IP blog thingy...and others (JCT's for one).

Mind blowing. Even some on this thread are quoting from UKC, some on an almost daily basis proving that although they may slag it off they are actually there reading everyday.....although they would never admit it!

M
x
Woodwell were great tonight. I was out with the big mister of Lakeland bouldering....I now have several more Font 7a projects to get my 44 year old bones up and I'm looking forward to every minute of this fine climbing experience.

[Carnage]

popularity of comment there is about UKClimbing.com at UKB and at that IP blog thingy...off they are actually there reading everyday

IP Blog - The online equivalent of 'The Soup' - They read all the crap so that you don't have to.

[Bubba]

referring to an earlier comment you made a comment about us treating guest posters as second class citizens: presumably this was reference to my frequent moans about anonymous posters.

No, it was more a reference to when somebody who either doesn't use a "real" name or is not a registered user posts something that the rest of the forum is uncomfortable with, there follows a whole slew of "why don't you post using your real name, coward" or "why no profile", etc. This may have changed of course, I've not read your forums regularly for a while now.

Fine. But if you run a bigger forum you have to allow lots of stuff that you don't necessarily want. By doing that you get lots more stuff that you wouldn't necessarily expect.

I'm not sure it *has* to be like that if you're willing to accept a much smaller growth rate.

No, I meant breadth and diversity of opinions.

My bad. I guess that is something that comes with a larger membership, and something that will improve, albeit slowly, in the future.

I see. So everyone is welcome except those working on unapproved guidebook projects.

You're perfectly welcome here Alan, I was just giving my perception of why that particular question didn't get answered. I may not be correct in that view, but it was the impression I got.

[Bubba]

I'm just aghast at the amount and the popularity of comment there is about UKClimbing.com at UKB...

It's only one thread here Mick, please try to contain your aghastness.

I was out with the big mister of Lakeland bouldering....

Which one, Jonathan Lagoe or Andy Hyslop? 

[Bubba]

IP Blog - The online equivalent of 'The Soup' - They read all the crap so that you don't have to.

I quite like ip-climber so far - they bring stuff to my attention that I wouldn't otherwise have read.

[Carnage]

Yeah - I wasn't saying it was a bad thing - Pretty funny so far. 

[Bubba]

what's "the soup"?

[Carnage]

Its this comedy show on 'E' entertainment channel (here anywhere) where they rip the piss out of celebrities and reality TV shows viciously. They watch all the bad stuff and do a kind of round-up of the shit shows.

Have some waddage for being up early enough to post - Doing the UKB nightshift ain't much fun!

[Bubba]

I'll try to download an episode, sounds like a good one to wind Ms Bubba up with

Yeah, I've been working from 10pm last night to 6 this morning. I always too wired to hit the sack straight away which is why I'm on here this early .

[Mick Ryan]

I'm just aghast at the amount and the popularity of comment there is about UKClimbing.com at UKB...

It's only one thread here Mick, please try to contain your aghastness.

I was out with the big mister of Lakeland bouldering....

Which one, Jonathan Lagoe or Andy Hyslop? 

This guy:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=51351

Yes just one thread but lots of activity about UKC, ditto the I-P blog that focuses on UKC and old rec.climbing posts. Whilst flattering it is a good thing to have critics, hopefully as it evolves it will get over its obsession with UKC and cast its net a tad wider as there is a lot to 'investigate' and make comment on in the climbing world in the UK both online and off. It could make interesting reading. We'll see eh?

Mick

[Matt]

Nice thread, still not learned why sloper was banned, but probably good for his productivity judging by his post count. Nice link to ip-climber, I just caught the aftermath to that but missed the links. Can't see what the fuss was about other than the nick smith mix-up, which was surprisingly uninformed based on their "A sort of 'Our Correspondent' meets 'Private Eye'" claim. As it's not particularly enlightening or funny I guess that stretches the truth as much as the UKC "voice of 22-130k climbers" they're slagging off.

I've been on UKC >5 yrs and 4 on UKB, I'm making my annual post  and neither is ideal. UKC was good at the start when there more climbers and less bullshit as all the topics hadn't been done to death. Now it's so diluted that on my thrice daily 15min time-kills that I can't find much interest, and find myself drawn into mindless shite that I'd be better without. However, the reverse is true of UKB - there is barely enough posting to maintain a 3x5min/day visit rate, it comes across as cliquey and too many people thinking it's word to give waddage  The threads I'm most interested in just seem to die, what happened to landman in the USA? Buoux8c trying the new routes at hollywood?... I'm just after a quick fix of decent news and pictures and the odd bit of slander and gossip.

[Bonjoy]

Damn right it's quick Bubba......either you are on drugs or you are fuckin knackered. Your amnesia is very convenient.

Of course it is your perogative....for goodness sake man you even admit to banning people before they even post.

This is your private club......and that's fine.

Usenet is fucking shite....well yes it is now.....most weren't even hooked up to the internet when it was in its heyday....the precursor to sites like this and UKC

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.climbing/browse_frm/thread/59c51b8e693aee56/8b7c69f61c0729f6?tvc=1&q=Lynn+Hill+and+Midnight+Lightning#8b7c69f61c0729f6

Great fun.

Come on Bubba get a fuckin spine for god's sake....either that or ban me because I'm stirring or taking the piss.

Pathetic dude and most people know it.

Peace bro


Mick

 A lot of people slag you off Mick. I don't know the full story and I try to keep an open mind, but this kind of post makes you sound like the cock people say you are. I hope you'd been drinking...

 Apart from being the least negative person you will ever have the pleasure of meeting, and make no mistake we will meet, I'll jog yours.

   ???

This guy:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=51351

 How do you think Greg likes being cheesilly name dropped on here? I imagine he might find it embarassing on various levels.

[soapy]

ok, who broke it?

own up!

[SA Chris]

For what it's worth, I think Mick and Bubba are both totally sound guys, having met both a couple of times. However Mick, you do have a habit of stirring on forums, and I don't seem to remember you ever making a useful contribution to any thread on UKB.