UKBouldering.com
the site => site notices and updates => Topic started by: shark on September 28, 2010, 10:17:43 am
-
UKB has a long running thread called “Dead Fit Birds Who Go Climbing” (DFBWGC for short) (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10790.0.html)Now in its 3rd incarnation the current thread has over 2,000 post and 200,000 views. Clearly it is popular and for obvious reasons. Typically a post will include a picture of a woman climbing and commentary of various kinds ensues. My personal view was that it’s a harmless juvenile indulgence and refreshing antidote to a politically correct world.
Since acquiring UKB we (Toby and I) have received various missives from UKC demanding we do this or that which we have politely declined. The latest stone lobbed over the fence was CC’ed elsewhere to enlist wider support in the industry to apply pressure on us to make changes they felt were appropriate. Clearly we don’t welcome this sort of interference which stems from historical antagonisms that hopefully we can all move on from. They do their thing – we do ours.
However, amongst other things the email contained an accusation that DFBWGC was misogynist. This struck a chord with an industry professional who felt it was “insulting to women”. Mentally I wrote this off as “you can’t please them all”. However, the following morning at Raven Tor I bumped into UKB regular Joe Le Sausage and his partner Vicki. I chatted about DFBWGC and was surprised that they also both had a negative view. Vicki raised some points that I hadn’t considered before which made me think again :-\. I thought this required further investigation and consequently Toby and I canvassed further opinion by email asking the following:
Which of the following views do you have, broadly speaking, on the DFBWGC thread:
1. It’s misogynist – I’d like to see it removed
2. It’s offensive – I’d like to see it removed
3. It’s laddish – I can live with it
4. It’s a bit pathetic – I can live with it
5. It’s a bit of fun – I like it
6. It’s a celebration of female climbers – I like it
Here’s the feedback:
Vicki Robinson (http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/socstudies/staff/staff-profiles/robinson.html) (author of Everyday Masculinities and Extreme Sport: Male Identity and Rock Climbing) (http://www.ebook3000.com/Sports/Victoria-Robinson---Everyday-Masculinities-and-Extreme-Sport--Male-Identity-and-Rock-Climbing_68646.html)
'My view is that overall, the thread goes beyond being 'just a bit of fun' (though some of the entries could, arguably, be seen as that). I don't think it really celebrates women climbers, apart from their looks that is. Not too many women in there who aren't 'traditionally' attractive, even if they do climb E9 I noted!
I think misogynist is a trifle strong, but I can see how some women climbers (and some men) could well be offended by sporting women being so trivialised. I think the entries vary from having a laugh and making (crap) jokes -(which actually is more what the thread is about -men showing off to
each other and not really about women climbers..)- and then some posters crossing a line which goes from taking the piss, to being sexist, and therefore offensive to some.
If I was a woman climber who used the site, it would piss me off it was there. There seems to me two options, zap it as some posts are offensive, not to say repetitive, tedious and humourless or start a thread on male climbers to show that instead of being so pathetic they should be out on the grit more.."
Katherine Schirrmacher (http://www.lovetoclimb.co.uk/about.php)
This is a tricky subject. I am well aware that all this started out as a laddish down the pub type of thing. But I’m also aware this thread is ongoing for a number of years, which to my mind means there’s something more to it. Believe me women would not spend this long on this sort of subject. Of course we discuss things like this on a superficial level but then let it go after an hour down the pub. If it’s just a laddish discussion I’m really not that bothered but I am when it goes further commenting on age, how over muscular they are (meaning this may not be attractive even though it’s necessary to climb well) or thinness as these issues are more worrying (and this thread does touch on this kind of thing).
To be honest I’ve been shouted down about these kind of issues before so I’m loathed to get involved. This is a form of sexism in itself where a minority group (in this case women) aren’t able to fully express their thoughts and I’ve learnt on certain subjects like this just to let it go over my head.......This kind of thread certainly gives the impression that it’s a male dominated site. There are other threads on there that just generally give the impression that it’s not a place where lots of female climbers input their views. The site doesn’t appeal to me at all and generally there aren’t many female posters.
Other responses:
Respondent 1: “After consultation with the women in the office we'd probably go for a 3/4 i.e. not mad about it but can live with it. Kind of prefer it when the women are actually climbing - but guess you can't police each photo!”
Respondent 2: “That'll be a 3 from me. Don't think it's misogynistic at all. Was all prepared to get irritated when I looked at the thread but it didn't bother me at all (maybe I've not seen it all!). Would be fairly surprised if many female climbers would have a problem with it but there's bound to be a few....and then a second email....Was just thinking a bit more about the thread and had a look at a few more pages. Guess I'd go for a 3/4. It's the comments that could be a problem. Was thinking how I'd feel if there were pictures and comments of myself or a close friend, and I would probably be pretty upset if I'm honest! Still, doesn't mean I think the thread should be pulled. Guess I just accept that men are men”
Respondent 3: “Hmmm. Well it's not pr0n, is it? The photos seem to be mostly reprints of existing photos. Though I'm not familiar with the majority of the women, I'm guessing they are pro's?
“I found some of the exchanges funny - seems like there's a guy willing to defend/find something appealing about each of the women. Plus there's quite a bit of "inside" banter/giving shit between the posters which is very common on any forum.
Otherwise, it's just juvenile and stupid - probably like the posters themselves. As long as the posts were in good fun, not blatantly lewd/crass or inappropriate such as posting photos of 13 year olds, then I could live with it. My feeling is that men will always find a way to ogle and objectify women especially in a rather anonymous format such as an online forum. So instead of fighting it, set up a system that allows it to have a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, bathroom humour existence.
Would it be possible to have a rating scale that other posters could flag posts as misogynistic, obnoxious, etc thereby publicly shaming the poster and/or blocking them from posting again? I think it could work to let the posters self-police. My guess is that there are a certain number of lurkers who are pretty decent human beings and who would quietly report a poster if crotch shots of 13 year olds started appearing. A lot of forums have a disclaimer that lets posters know that they will be banned or reported for a variety of reasons, although I don't know what "authority" you - the owner - would report them to. My guess is that the egregious offenders will just set up another fictitious profile and keep posting. I don't know how you solve for that.
I didn't quite understand the rating criteria being used, possibly because the british slang was not familiar to me. But if a photo of me appeared I guess I wouldn't care so much because I'd have the opportunity to flame or respond to any comments. I find the possibility of me appearing on such a forum quite remote since it would mean that either a friend/acquaintance posted the photo or some pathetic dude surreptitiously took a photo and posted it. If said friend posted the photo, they would have to deal with me in person, if a stranger posted the photo then they would have to deal with me and all my friends. It's a no-win situation for the poor poster. I think that most of my female friends would feel the same way. Of course there's a certain % of women (and men) who will be incredibly offended by this kind of forum but people are offended by anything. You could probably have a forum posting pictures of cute baby kittens at climbing crags and someone out there will be offended”.
Respondent 4: “I’d like to see it removed] and I would be horrified if I appeared on it. I wonder if those girls who appeared on the thread gave consent....because for me, It feels like harassment”.
Respondent 5: “As far as the thread (which I have seen before and have read several pages)....I'd opt for 6 It doesn't bother me. I could see myself posting to a similar thread but with dead fit "men".....If I appeared on it, I would be indifferent. I'd probably read it amusingly or check it out and not really read anymore”.
Respondent 6: “for me it was both 3). it's laddish, but i can live with it and 4). it's a bit pathetic, but i can live with it. I don't think i would appear on it, if i did, i would not be too thrilled! i wouldn't be horrified but i would be more flattered if i was on there because i climbed something well and looked great too! It was more the comments that were a little lame yes? with that said, if the comments stay relatively clean then i don't see the harm of it, i can see it being pretty popular amongst men. Its not something i would go back and visit though, but maybe its because i prefer scantily clad men ;).”.
Clearly the views are divergent. However, none of the above felt it was misogynist but only one went option 6 i.e. It’s a celebration of female climbers – I like it. However, if all the comments that were made on the DFBWGC thread were left on or certain discussions were allowed to get out of hand the view would almost certainly be very different. From a moderating point of view it is perplexing on when to draw the line when the line is so blurred. Moderation is light at UKB and if in doubt we generally leave posts in. Lest you think I am being overly precious here, a couple of recent comments (late night and no doubt alcohol fuelled) that have clearly overstepped and been removed are as follows: “She won't be as annoying when she's sucking on my cock!” and “Let's face it, she might be a daft ambitious hillwalker, but you'd still ram her full of spunk until she started sweating it out”
So whither DFBWGC ? :-\
On the evidence of responses it is not, as UKC claim, misogynist and so overall does not breach our current Moderating policy such as it is. However, it is troublesome for us from a commercial and individual post moderation perspective. On the other hand it is an institution on UKB - but then again as an institution it gives the (we believe false) perception of an engrained sexism which undermines and trivialises female climbers.
Conclusion
DFBWGC has been and no doubt will continue to cause problems for us with respect to moderating specific posts and by putting off some potential sponsors particularly when the competition makes it their business to draw specific attention to it and characterise UKB as encouraging misogyny. For these reasons I propose giving DFBWGC an honourable burial by locking the topic and moving it to the shit heap (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/board,35.0.html)
Anyone care to oppose the motion? Comments and votes please...
P.S. Thanks to everyone who responded to our questionnaire and provided views - especially Vicki Robinson and Katherine Schirrmacher.
-
have received various missives from UKC demanding we do this or that which we have politely declined. The latest stone lobbed over the fence was CC’ed elsewhere to enlist wider support in the industry to apply pressure on us to make changes they felt were appropriate.
I find this rather more intriguing than the question of DFB. What has anything on here got to do with them? Other than direct slander obviously.
particularly when the competition makes it their business to draw specific attention to it and characterise UKB as encouraging misogyny
Pretty sad. You would think their domination of the market would put them above such things. I know and like them all as individuals but grow the fuck up.
-
I completely agree with everything you say but collectively it would be better all round not to get wound up by it (hard I know and I was) and keep this topic on DFBWGC.
-
It seems to be the comments that are causing the problem rather than the pictures, so making it a thread you could only post images in and no text (and as such would be purely objectifying the women) would be fine?? Hmmm...
I'd agree that the popularity of the thread does give the impression that the site is male dominated, but then it is isn't it?
Seems like a nothing problem to me but if it's easier to get rid of it than keep it then so be it. Seems some people maybe have a bit too much time on there hands (both thread critics and contributors I imagine).
Didn't Magpie have a Dead Fit Blokes Who Are Called Chris And Who's Surnames Begin With S H A And End With R M A And Who Go Climbing thread thus maintaining sexual equality or something...
-
Since acquiring UKB we (Toby and I) have received various missives from UKC demanding we do this or that which we have politely declined. The latest stone lobbed over the fence was CC’ed elsewhere to enlist wider support in the industry to apply pressure on us to make changes they felt were appropriate.
I know you want to keep this about DFBWGC but people should be able to comment on this.
UKC's actions are utterly pathetic, and as I'm also a registered user on that site I'd like to know what else they've been up to so I can decide whether that's a site I want to be associated with.
-
Well UKC have over the years hosted a number of banners with "Dead fit birds who go/are climbing" as part of the advertising to encourage people to click through, so they should perhaps think about the glass house they inhabit (In fact at present they have a banner for Montane on their site that objectifies men by having a bloke in his pants with a climbing harness/rope/helmet. Thats just not on!). Besides which why the fuck they think they have the right to take anyone else to task over how they run their website beggars belief. If they wanted control over the domain ukbouldering.com then they should have made Bubba an offer (although I can guess what the response would have be).
The fact is though, whether right or wrong (and I generally think its wrong) the use of sex to sell within the climbing industry is as rife as anywhere else. A number of recent pictures to the thread were from the archives of Rock and Ice, some people take "artistic nudes" and make calendars out of them that they sell for a nice profit.
Providing all "media" agree to not use images of "pretty" women/men climbing, which would be fair and even handed, then I don't see why UKB should be singled out.
If the thread as it stands were removed people could (and may well) continue to post pictures except in a new thread for each set of pictures, which in turn would require heavy moderation.
As Nik says there is the threads anotnym (see here (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,2534.msg29334.html) and more recently here (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,8625.msg163541.html)).
Unfortunately without heavy moderation I don't think you can restrict a thread to only pictures and no comments.
As to people not liking the thread, no one forces anyone reading the site to click on and read/view the thread, all have fairly honest and representative thread titles allowing screening. There are some that I don't bother with regularly because they're of no interest to me, e.g. Football and most of the cycling threads. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the rest of the content on the site.
-
What Serpico said. Meddling like that is nothing short of tragic.
-
The Dead fit blokes thread (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,8625.825.html) managed 38 pages; perhaps the overlords should pay Magpie to keep it updated to even out the balance?
Can we get an ass shot on that one? I like him...
Or will 'this sort of thing' have to go too? I'm not sure anyone who is offended by it would get on too well with the rest of the site.
Moderation will have to increase with traffic; I don't envy what they have to do at UKC. But I'd stick to individuals not overall content.
-
Since acquiring UKB we (Toby and I) have received various missives from UKC demanding we do this or that which we have politely declined. The latest stone lobbed over the fence was CC’ed elsewhere to enlist wider support in the industry to apply pressure on us to make changes they felt were appropriate.
I know you say you want to keep this as a talk about DFBWGC, but surely them asking you to change your site to others in the industry (potential sponsers?) a form of slander?
On DFBWGC if you are still going to get the comments and pictures appearing in different thread. i.e.
significant repeats XXX repeats XXX route.
AN Other replys nice one well done. shes fit as well
Its your site to run as you see fit not for external influences to control imo. I like the thread. But if its going to cause you problems close it. Also isn't there a DFMen thread somewhere?
-
Since acquiring UKB we (Toby and I) have received various missives from UKC demanding we do this or that which we have politely declined. The latest stone lobbed over the fence was CC’ed elsewhere to enlist wider support in the industry to apply pressure on us to make changes they felt were appropriate.
I know you say you want to keep this as a talk about DFBWGC, but surely them asking you to change your site to others in the industry (potential sponsers?) a form of slander?
Define : slander (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3A+slander) so not really, I'd call it nosey at best, an attempt at bullying at worse.
If the birds thread is to be ditched, then the blokes thread should too ( for equality of the sexes and all that jazz :wank:).
-
I know you want to keep this about DFBWGC but people should be able to comment on this.
UKC's actions are utterly pathetic, and as I'm also a registered user on that site I'd like to know what else they've been up to so I can decide whether that's a site I want to be associated with.
:agree:
I suddenly have a lot more sympathy for Jens Larssen (which is something I thought I'd never say!). I bet he gets a lot of spam from a UKC representative that no one ever knows about too.
Regarding DFBWGC I think it's laddish but a bit of harmless fun really. If it has to go I wouldn't be that fussed but I agree with Grubes, it must be your decision rather than one forced upon you by some other site with zero stake in UKB. It's going to be difficult to drop it without giving UKC the satisfaction of having wielded their influence over you IMO.
-
An interesting post - and set of questions.
My perspective....
I stopped posting on DFBWGC* after getting a punter point - and a DM from another poster about one of my posts (look up my punter point history if you want to find out what - I've kind of forgotten..). This made me have a long(ish) look at what I had done and I thought that I would stop posting there if it were causing people/persons offence. It had not occured to me that what I had thought was quite innocent/daft to post may have caused offence and when that was pointed out I stopped. I've not posted on that thread since - maybe thats a bit drastic, but a simple rule to myself etc...
So I think that maybe the best way forward here is....
1. Move the DFBWGC to the log pile - but make it postable/editable as such (isnt that what happens?) so its pretty clear that the thread is in the smuttier/dafter/grimmer end of the thread spectrum. The NSFW thread is far worse in places IMHO.... Where it is at the moment in shooting the shit makes it maybe a bit too obvious... bury it down a layer or two so its still there but not so up front...
2. Let it continue to be self regulated - but that also means we (as a group) need to be willing to chastise/punter people when they're stepping out of line...
3. Moderation - not really sure its needed any more than it is.. there is next to no moderation here (which is why it is ace) but occasionally I've seen the odd thread/message get zapped when its clearly out of order.. lets just keep it at the level it is now? I dont know the nitty gritty, but are there a few members who have zapping rights - so there is a uber-low level of moderation already?
-
I totally oppose the motion, it's a classic thread.
So we appreciate some women's looks?? HELLO?? Each gender finds the other gender visually attractive, it's perfectly bloody normal.
Consider this: what proportion of people posting on the thread have a female partner they love and respect, and female friends they also like and respect as quality human beings?? Hell even Andi_e has a gf (or had one). Look at the amount of devoted husbands and loving dads on the thread FFS...
Comments, fair enough, some of them go too far, I've been moderated once or twice with good reason, I accept that and am more careful with what I post. I think people are getting the message.
-
I have no particular interest in the thread, and wouldn't care if it is cut, but personally think that the light moderation and "self policing " of these forums is one of it's strongest points, and cutting threads like this would be a move away from this. Particularly when there are, as has been pointed out, equivalent threads on men.
Another consideration from a business perspective is that obviously the sexist content could potentially put off sponsors, but when DFB II and III are the second and third most visited threads, would cutting them reduce traffic on the forums in any significant way?
-
I'm in two mind. I can see how it can be a ball-ache for the powers that be (especially when certain individuals get a little pissed and forget normal decency :-[ ), so cutting it would save some time, effort, and possible backlash to moderation, however I think it would be a shame to get rid of it totally, when the majority of the Respondents seemed fairly non-plussed by it. I would be inclined to go for a slightly more moderated approach, to reduce any sexism, but to generally keep it as is.
If it goes, I think the pics would probably just end up in Quality Climbing Pics anyway.
I'm also inclined to agree, that what happens on this site, is nothing to do with anyone else.
-
I too wonder why UKC feel the need to try to bully UKB. I also find it ironic that UKC currently have an advert showing a lady's nipple (albeit partially covered in mud). But from my encounters, I would expect nothing other than an overbearing attitude.
As far as DFBWGC is concerned, I don't tend to look at it. I can't see it can be friticised for sexism as a DFBWGC thread already exists, as already pointed out.
Next comes exploitation. Since all the photos (to my knowledge) are already on the web, and are simply embedded, they are already in the public domain. The thread simple accrues thephotos into one resource. Unless people take candid photos and post them, I can't see how UKB can be said to exploit people- consent to have pictures posted isn't an issue.
Misogyny (from the Greek) is a hatred of women. I can't see how the thread fits that tag. It doesn't even fit with male chauvinism.
In my opinion, as far as images go, the thread doesn't breach any rules.
Do we come to the comments- I would agree that these have been unacceptable in the past. This, to my mind, is where the thread falls down. Without the comments it could be argued to be a celebration of the female climber.
So what to do? Suppressing comments seems the most logical, but also quite labour intensive, plan. However, if it's causing a lot of hassle I can't see UKC letting it go. Add to the the reducing number of new photos why not just lock the thread? Let it die in it's prime rather than dragging on.
Then comes the question of whether to delete the old threads. If this is done, you'd have to delete all the threads, including DFBWGC etc etc etc. Maybe lock them with an addednote that UKB has matured under new management? (yeah, right?)
-
Well since I whack off twice daily over said thread I'd be rather gutted to see its demise.
This is crazy. I worry for people who find the DFBWGC thread offensive considering how much total badness there is out there on the internet, media and in people generally. DFBWGC is way less offensive even than the likes of FHM, Zoo, Nuts etc. (not that I have subscriptions). Get a grip folks.
(sorry if this post's 'unhelpful', just trying to inject some sanity)
-
DFBWGC is way less offensive even than the likes of FHM, Zoo, Nuts etc
And France.
-
The Dead fit blokes thread (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,8625.825.html) managed 38 pages; perhaps the overlords should pay Magpie to keep it updated to even out the balance?
I am totally up for this, for the good of the board, obviously. ;)
I don't see the issue with the DFBWGC thread, I would imagine most of it's opposers are just using it as an excuse to get their knickers in a twist or cause bother about something. Yes, some of the comments are not wholly appropriate (but those are generally removed pretty fast) and I can see why they might make people uncomfortable, specifically if you are the one being discussed in less than favourable terms but generally it's just a bit laddish and fairly harmless.
However, it's hardly of great benefit to the site as a whole, and there is a constant struggle for new material anyway, so if it's causing problems for you guys then chuck it, I'm fairly sure the majority of posters are capable of finding their own perving material should the need arise.
-
I'd be happy to see it go to be honest (not saying I don't look at it, and I think I've posted in the past). I think it is a somewhat embarrassing part of an otherwise amazing forum. Talking to a few people who hadn't been to UKB before they had been directed here to look at DFB (or in a couple of cases to look at 2000.Dave spitting his dummy out), and even though this obviously promotes site traffic, I guess there must be consideration of what is good and bad traffic?
I think taking the POV of the climber in question, especially if a picture has been linked from their own website so they know where the traffic is coming from, is a good start. I would be uncomfortable if pics were posted of any of my friends followed by some of the remarks in that thread.
It's a real shame that this has been addressed via comments from UKC. I think it would perhaps have been better to keep these two problems separate (i.e started this thread without mentioning that the feedback had come via UKC). Obviously the mention of the other site gets people's hackles up, and they obviously see you as a threat (which is brilliant), but their involvement does somewhat obfuscate the issue regarding whether the threads should stay or go...
-
If the threads (male & female) were locked the traffic would drift to other threads and these too would have to be moderated, as would videos of bouldering comps etc. etc. etc.
-
Sorry, some of my DFBWGC in my last post refer to the Blokes thread. Blame the phone.
Slacker, what you say is likely true. However, having the alleged sexism/ misogynism/ pervibg spread pug rather than in a specific thread would doubtless reduce the criticism.
-
If the threads (male & female) were locked the traffic would drift to other threads and these too would have to be moderated, as would videos of bouldering comps etc. etc. etc.
But it would stem the somewhat creepy facebook stalking, hotlink embarrassment and people's first experiences of UKB being DFBWGC...
-
no one forces anyone reading the site to click on and read/view the thread, all have fairly honest and representative thread titles allowing screening. There are some that I don't bother with regularly because they're of no interest to me, e.g. Football and most of the cycling threads. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the rest of the content on the site.
:agree:
1. Move the DFBWGC to the log pile - but make it postable/editable as such (isn't that what happens?) so its pretty clear that the thread is in the smuttier/dafter/grimmer end of the thread spectrum. The NSFW thread is far worse in places IMHO.... Where it is at the moment in shooting the shit makes it maybe a bit too obvious... bury it down a layer or two so its still there but not so up front...
2. Let it continue to be self regulated - but that also means we (as a group) need to be willing to chastise/punter people when they're stepping out of line...
As a regular poster on DFBWGC I would argue that is it generally self regulated pretty well. If someone posts something out of line they are usually shouted down with relative speed.
In addition I agree with tomtom when he says that there are plenty of other threads with lots worse on them.
I'm of the opinion that if you do move it too the log pile it is likely that posts will become worse as it is visited with less frequency and therefore self regulated less.
-
If the threads (male & female) were locked the traffic would drift to other threads and these too would have to be moderated, as would videos of bouldering comps etc. etc. etc.
But it would stem the somewhat creepy facebook stalking, hotlink embarrassment and people's first experiences of UKB being DFBWGC...
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 (http://www.ukbouldering.com/wiki/index.php/HowTo_Embed_Pictures_to_UKBouldering).
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 (http://www.flickr.com/groups/girlclimb/).
-
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 (http://www.ukbouldering.com/wiki/index.php/HowTo_Embed_Pictures_to_UKBouldering).
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 (http://www.flickr.com/groups/girlclimb/).
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=426638)"? - 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...
-
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
(http://www.thevalueengineers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/banksy-elephant-in-room1.jpg)
-
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 :-\
-
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...
-
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
(http://www.thevalueengineers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/banksy-elephant-in-room1.jpg)
Wow, the flying saucer has escaped from the picture frame!
-
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 (http://www.fuorivia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=829&sid=bd5bb39eacd918bdce9902dd3a763297)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Take your photos down then or grow some thicker skin (ideally a nice olive tone and not too veiny).
:lol:
-
Keep the thread, it's funny and irreverent which is something that is often sadly lacking in climbing. And two fingers to UKC :wank:. Remember: for political correctness to triumph it only requires that sensible people do nothing!
-
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
(http://www.thevalueengineers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/banksy-elephant-in-room1.jpg)
A dead fit bird reading a book?
-
A dead fit bird reading a book?
no, I think he means her ancestor giving someone the finger, MR presumably?
-
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. :P (the flying saucer is cooler though).
-
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.
-
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. :P (the flying saucer is cooler though).
is that mrs slack-line in a gas mask below?
-
There's an elephant in that picture?
-
In the far left hand bottom pic... if thats an elephant, and not a lady wearing a gas mask, i'm a giraffe, eh!?
-
I wondered where my mask had gone the other week, now I know!
-
Simon, could you not just weight the importance of the comments by the comparative fitness of the respondent to get the definitive answer?
-
Simon, could you not just weight the importance of the comments by the comparative fitness of the respondent to get the definitive answer?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7lVdMls5uOs/R9NO-TGaVyI/AAAAAAAABEo/rj-Uh_rFLs8/s400/see_no_evil.jpg)
-
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?
-
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)
-
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.
Bugger is certainly bang out of order. As is C*nt and other offensive words like B0no.
-
Is there any wayof replacing the word UKC with a emoticon that plays THE SAINT THEME 1962 - 1969 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3x2MHT1Q7E&feature=related#). Tomtom, wash your mouth out, How dare you use the B**o word
-
This forum has always been a breath of fresh air and the thread in question contributes to that. Jeez if we get things in prospective you have the daily star and sun printing titties every day to 10% of the country, let alone all the FHM's and Loaded's.
It might not be a technically PC, but 95% of the time has been non-offensive. If your going to axe it, the only reason is to appease the 2 % of people that actually seem to be bothered, (i.e UKC).
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...
This guy has it right, where are your long term interests? Keeping the forum in its original spirit, or cleaning it and commercialising it.
(PS I'm not having a pop, I'm not the one whose invested and I respect you'd like some income)
But--- I say defo got to keep it.
-
I say that DFBWGC sums up some of what UKB is about. It's taking the piss, being funny, cruel and not really caring what anyone thinks. My wife doesn't think it's a negative to women, she thinks it's a bit of a piss take and a bit juvenile but nothing more. She also said if she was a climber and wasn't on it she'd be gutted...
Have UKC been moaning about the dead fit blokes that go climbing thread? Probably not - so aren't they being sexist there? as a man I find it offensive that the self proclaimed knights of the internet aren't standing up for my rights as a man.
Didn't UKC post this as a Friday night vid?http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=50551 with the following thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=382863 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=382863) not much evidence there of not objectifying women. I know it causes you guys grief when we call Mick Ryan a **** so I won't, but they should put their own house in order first - before commenting on others. Why don't we all ask them to remove that video and the accompanying thread?
For fucks sake - don't let them sanitise the irreverence of UKB, it's one of the many things I love about the site.
Next I won't be able to slag Alex Ferguson off on the football threads - in case it offends scum fans.
Richard
-
What is this "irony" that you speak of?
The irony that the freedom which enhances the site also has some downsides. I think it's about a tipping point: I feel uncomfortable with a small number of posts because they're pretty schoolboy-lech level and sometimes get criticised within the thread. In the majority of cases that's untrue however and it is acceptable (to me) banter and pics of attractive women without being harassing or chauvinistic ie disrespectful.
I would say that comparisons with whatever else is out there eg Nuts, The Sun :wank: are irrelevant. Just because you can find something worse doesn't entitle you to move downwards: the only issue is the desirable direction and standards of UKB.
I represent one viewpoint however. Others may feel differently. If commercial interests dictate the need to pull such a thread - fair enough. Hypocritical moral outrage isn't to my mind a valid reason however.
-
I would say that comparisons with whatever else is out there eg Nuts, The Sun :wank: are irrelevant. Just because you can find something worse doesn't entitle you to move downwards: the only issue is the desirable direction and standards of UKB.
:agree:
Otherwise we mights as well start comparing the forums with 4chan
-
I think Stu (as others have noted) summed it up well, it all depends on the direction you wish to take the forum. I'd struggle to see how it could be a commercial viability in its current form but moving it towards that of the other channel will lead to it losing its identity (and possibly core members and not simply because of DFBWGC).
I'd go for the don't touch it option.
Personally I'd go even further: I'd argue that the comments from drunken late nighters should have been left in. In the cold light of morning I'm fairly sure the forum would have kicked into self-policing mode and the offending post would have well and truly been objected to, no doubt, with the posters eating a slice of humble pie, proving the forum works in its current form. The karma systems applies here as well. By applying moderation of any sort you are setting a standard for what is and what isn't acceptable which is surely going to mean moderation becoming more widespread across the forum, is it really necessary? Has self policing failed?
I've overstepped the mark on here more than my fair share of times and every time I think it has been resolved. From an outsiders view I can see how a lot of the comments could be deemed offensive but a lot of banter references back to other threads/events, sometimes even years, this extends to the wall/crag/twitter. Nobody looking in is going to have a clue how to take these comments and on face value they simply don't look good. This is proven in the original post.
Out of the online forums I use I have to say that UKB is probably the most welcoming of them all, many of the others could be summed up as hostile and with a list of rules as long as your arm.
-
Screw UKC, they should mind their own business. There is rarely anything worth reading on their forum (unless of course your interested in queries about waterproof zips and the like). Agree that the outcome of this issue depends on what direction the owners want to take the site. For me the thread in question sums up the refreshing irreverence of the site which is a major part of its charm.
-
Despite my non-appearance on the thread (apart from once, long ago after a hint the size of a house), I have to say I am not offended by whole thing.
The banter is occasionally amusing, occasionally a tad laddish and now and again veering towards offensive. However, when that has happened I have been impressed by the ability of those posting to police themselves/ each other. I agree that if you do find it on the puerile side, then you can simply not bother looking. It makes it quite clear what to expect from the thread title.
On the plus side, the photos are often quite inspiring, when they are actually dead fit climbing birds rather than pr0n chicks who have put a pair of shoes/ harness/ bikini/ nowt on - but those in themselves have a very slight amusement value.
I think we just ran out of photos of fit blokes/ simply couldn't be arsed for the fellow 'dead fit blokes...' thread. Magpie, we must hold ourselves responsible for this lack of enthusiasm.
Misogynist? I have encountered far worse attitudes towards women outside the climbing world.
So, I reckon that people should be allowed to continue to self-monitor what goes on. The moderators don't have an easy job, but they're doing it pretty well. We also have a collective responsibility to point out/ respond to/ punter what is not acceptable.
-
I agree with mrjonathanr, Paul B & Fiend. ( bet that wont come round again often ???)
leave it alone....
however i haven't invested in this place..
tricky one...
-
What Stu said.
If DFBirds/BlokesWGC is to be censored then surely the only joking (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,6416.0/topicseen.html) thread will have to be cut too, and many, many other posts/threads.
Thats not to say anarchy should rule, but as PaulB says people get shot down/bought to task/puntered if they make poorly judged (/ :alky: ) posts.
-
the game for a laugh thread is probably the best thread here
-
Out of the online forums I use I have to say that UKB is probably the most welcoming of them all, many of the others could be summed up as hostile and with a list of rules as long as your arm.
Agreed, and I say that as a female, who doesn't climb hard or live in Sheffield, so technically I should really fit in.
I think we just ran out of photos of fit blokes/ simply couldn't be arsed for the fellow 'dead fit blokes...' thread. Magpie, we must hold ourselves responsible for this lack of enthusiasm.
I do feel bad we haven't been keeping up our side. :-[
-
Another vote for what Stu said so eloquently.
Do you also then need to remove other threads where, for example, we discuss bike prOn and recommend certain manufacturers over others just in case one such manufacturer or supplier becomes a potential sponsor in future?
-
Thanks everyone for your replies and votes.
Overall this has demonstrated DFBWGC is loved enough to justify it being left alone. Motion overruled.
I'll lock the Poll now. We'll have some further comment and proposals in a few days.
-
Thanks everyone for your replies and votes.
Overall this has demonstrated DFBWGC is loved enough to justify it being left alone. Motion overruled.
I'll lock the Poll now. We'll have some further comment and proposals in a few days.
:dance1: Thats democracy in motion for you. Fair play.
-
Word, dawgs.
I was going to point out the poll being invalid because it didn't include a pastry / shoe option....but seeing as it went the morally right way anyway....
-
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=427227 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=427227)
Countdown to deletion
10... 9... 8...
-
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=427227 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=427227)
Countdown to deletion
10... 9... 8...
Thats f**king hilarious. Seems the righteous indignant on cocktalk are happy to oggle the female form and defend its posting. Shame their owners are so hypocritical as to 'snitch' on another site.
-
Don't see what the issue is, personally. :shrug:
-
:pissed:
:great:
Thanks everyone for your replies and votes.
Overall this has demonstrated DFBWGC is loved enough to justify it being left alone. Motion overruled.
I'll lock the Poll now. We'll have some further comment and proposals in a few days.
-
I think we just ran out of photos of fit blokes/ simply couldn't be arsed for the fellow 'dead fit blokes...' thread. Magpie, we must hold ourselves responsible for this lack of enthusiasm.
I do feel bad we haven't been keeping up our side. :-[
Contact lagers and see if he's willing to license the bridbotTM algorithm for adaptation to those with a Y-chromosome.
-
Thanks everyone for your replies and votes.
Overall this has demonstrated DFBWGC is loved enough to justify it being left alone. Motion overruled.
I'll lock the Poll now. We'll have some further comment and proposals in a few days.
:bounce: Huzzah!!!
-
Anyone else remember the Javelin Fleece adverts from the early 80's you know the one :whistle: sex sells. Straight, Bi or Gay we're all interested.
I can appreciate that someone might not appreciate that their boy/girlfriend's picture is posted or comments made but then again, if you want to keep stuff personal don't put it on the web.
I don't spend a lot of time looking at the thread so I don't have a lot of interest but I am always opposed to censorship(t).
-
You're ill for a couple of days and you miss all the fun. ;)
Great thread, great solidarity, much sense. Fuck Millie Tant, fuck total hypocrisy, fuck faux pc bullshit and fuck disgusting underhand smear campaigns which are purely commercial but which are disguised as something moral.
How low can you go? Makes me think UKB must be doing a lot right for people to get so concerned. I like it.
Fight the (distinct lack of) power. :bow:
-
Oh and I'd like to wad numerous people on this thread but it'd become tedious. The usual suspects speak the usual sense. Even Sloper.
Fucking hell if anyone should have a complaint about being objectified, humiliated and defamed by this site it's me!
And I think it's great. Because it does none of that.
-
I don't know, I go to bed at night and then when I get to work in the morning there's been a poll, a result and it's all over!
Agree with the result entirely btw.
-
Jasper in Sloper lust shag fest....
oooh
yeah baby!
:kiss1:
get in matey :P
seriously.. yep.. J'adore l'Ukb
solid from the mods
:bow:
-
Fucking hell if anyone should have a complaint about being objectified, humiliated and defamed by this site it's me!
Fuck off you sexy, blonde love God that likes tight lycra and once or thrice said that Lagers is a fat baldy twat.
Yeah.
(http://i27.tinypic.com/2m3n5ut.jpg)
-
The usual suspects speak the usual sense. Excepting Sloper
Fucking hell if anyone should have a complaint about being objectified, humiliated and defamed by this site it's me!
I might be willing to believe you are now a burd, if you insist, but isn't 'dead fit' pushing the envelope a bit far? :-\
-
As if they're gonna get rid of one of the most popular threads on the site when its stirs up this much controversy and hence traffic, if anything the sponsors will be pleased it's there to do so. Bless those UKC internet gods capering in their sawdust rings
-
:wave: G'day Toby, how's life as an insect overlord these days?
You'll need to nip this Sloper - shagfest thing in the bud pretty quickly or we'll be deserting you in droves!!
-
:agree:
If the DFBWGC thread is going to produce this sort of fuck fest I say it has to go ......
-
I'd frogotten about that. Pure world class. Also forgotten how hot Sarah Alexander is. Oops there I go again.
I mean her acting skills are admirable.
-
Snap.
-
I'd frogotten about that. Pure world class. Also forgotten how hot Sarah Alexander is. Oops there I go again.
I mean her acting skills are admirable.
Yes, they are (http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x15qcp_farang_sarah-alexander/1#videoId=xehhhe)
-
NSFW. Damn.
-
Sorry, should've tagged it.
-
I'd frogotten about that. Pure world class. Also forgotten how hot Sarah Alexander is. Oops there I go again.
I mean her acting skills are admirable.
Yes, they are (http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x15qcp_farang_sarah-alexander/1#videoId=xehhhe)
Didn't she go out with Michael Winner for a few years? What the hell did she see in him I wonder? :-\
-
Good outcome. :beer2: Nice to see democracy in action. Thanks mods. :thumbsup:
-
Forgot to ask, will you be telling ukc ( :wank: this is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinions of ukb.....um...) where to go?
-
Didn't she go out with Michael Winner for a few years? What the hell did she see in him I wonder? :-\
Are you sure about that? :-\
-
You're getting Michael Winner mixed up with Lagers.
-
Easily done.
-
Calm down dear, it's only a fit bird shagging an old, balding twat
-
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/winnerDM_468x700.jpg)
Hold on that's not lagers,...... it's Sloper isn't it?! :o
-
Looking at those flowing locks I'd say it's you in 10 (maybe 5?) years time...
-
Gonna have to work on the belly:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/11/article-1205688-06055C62000005DC-512_306x553.jpg)
-
Could be an older Fiend:
(http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00331/winnerdavidsandison_331582t.jpg)
-
I find this objectification of Michael Winner to be puerile and offensive.
There is no reason why we need to see his bare belly and chest. Shirley we can discuss his climbing achievements without comparing his physical resemblances to other UKB regulars?
Outraged from Heeley
-
Coming to this late but I'm dead against dropping the fit birds thread, it's one of the many trivial little things which makes this place what it is and differentiates it from the dire, heavily commercial, lack of free spirit that is ukc. Even if I don't look at the thread much (see what I did there) I like that it exists and that some commercially-correct pole-smoker hasn't shut it down.
Just keep it respectful, zap any stupid shit and all is good no? Women do happen to be beautiful to look at on top of their other good qualities and men are pretty basic on the surface, doesn't need any brow-beating about it. :rtfm:
Call it awesome ladies or something else sweet if it makes someone out there less tense.
You've already been shown to have done the right thing by taking the time and effort to find out other people's views and from these it seems that there's no strong case for it needing to be pulled. The only reason for pulling it must be commercial. How about widening your scope of potential sponsors? Forget North Face or whoever and go outside the box. The target audience on here must be interested in a whole load more than just climbing/biking related shit (not sure you can advertise weed&beer, maybe).
-
So it's settled then - DFBWGC stays, we just have to moderate our comments:
Father Ted - Doesn't Mary Have a Lovely Bottom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnYoFmBagmk#)
-
::) Ah right going back a page I see it's staying then. I'll fuck off again now.
-
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=427227 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=427227)
Countdown to deletion
10... 9... 8...
...0
-
Hahahahahaha! Silenced.
-
That thread I started lasted longer than I expected. Presumed it'd been deleted minutes after I put it up.
-
UKC has zapped the thread now.
Too close to home and too near the bone? More than you'll ever know ...
Kick them when they fall down
Kick them when they fall down
You kick them when they fall down
-
Contemptuous.
-
Just deleted my profile, photo's etc. I've previously adopted something of a fustrated don't-know-the-full-story when confronted with excessive censorship and deletion of threads and have complained about it to the UKC mods and owners in the past but remained within the fence as (hopefully) a limited voice of reason.
However, when I see and reflect on what has happened I have had no choice but to disengage completely.
-
I deleted GCW (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=17300) a while ago, especially after my exchanges with Mr Ryan.
-
I deleted GCW (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=17300) a while ago, especially after my exchanges with Mr Ryan.
apparently you can't actually delete a user profile? I tried and sent them an email telling them why. the response is below, funny that they actually think I'm a "valued contributor" when I hadn't logged on for over 12 months before i did to try and delete my account!:
Hi Jesse Iesu
I am sorry to hear this. Please at least read the rest of this email to get a better impression of what happened rather than the misleading picture Simon Lee has presented.
We have sent several emails to Simon and Toby since they owned the site requesting them to remove abusive comments directed at Mick Ryan and myself (although mostly Mick being called a cunt repeatedly). Our reasoning is simply that we wouldn't tolerate anyone being treated like that on UKC and if they want to move in the same advertising market as we do then they should not allow such vile abusive language about Mick to stay in place. This could be especially significant if they are talking to the same advertising contacts who could well come across these nasty characterisations when browsing UKB. They have refused to remove the vile posts although they have generally sidelined developing threads and made some effort to reduce the visibility and stop it getting out of control.
The incident in question on the recent thread was when Bubba was posting again asking someone to punch Mick at the Stoney weekend. Mick quite rightly asked this to be removed (which it was) and copied in Nikki who works for Pod since he knew she had started advertising and also knew that she was probably not fully aware of the nature of the language and posting on UKB. This was not a UKC policy decision, it was Mick responding to someone threatening violence against him on UKB.
I am not sure exactly what happened next but I know Nikki was particularly upset about the DFBWGC thread that she found and was certainly happy that she had been prompted to look closer; any subsequent action was entirely hers. I believe she asked for Pod Sacs advertising to be pulled. We have had no more interaction with her.
So you can see that the only changes we are requesting are that they make some effort to remove the vile and abusive language about Mick Ryan - that's it, nothing else. This has consisted of a bunch of emails earlier in the year - maybe 2 sets of exchanges - and the latest incident. We haven't asked them to do anything else and haven't tried to influence them in any other way and further more, we wouldn't want to ever do that. So far they haven't complied and the posts and language are still there. As yet neither of them has offered an answer to the scenario I posed asking them how they would react if there were many threads dotted all over UKC, and being added to on a weekly basis, that contained the phrase "Toby/Simon is a cunt" or "would someone punch Simon Lee for me please". Please substitute your own name into those sentences and then ask yourself how unreasonable our request is.
Lately we have pretty much dropped the matter since I agree that stirring it up is likely to add fuel to the fire but I fully support Mick in his actions in this case to stop more abusive and threatening stuff being posted.
Please reconsider your decision since I am keen not to have valued contributors to UKC to be put off visiting because of misapprehensions spread by SImon's lazy reporting.
Regards
Alan
_________
Alan James, Director
UKClimbing - http://www.ukclimbing.com (http://www.ukclimbing.com)
Rockfax - http://www.rockfax.com (http://www.rockfax.com)
[\quote]
ps I love the fact that his title is "Director"
Summary of my response was "Mick should just grow a pair, I learned to deal with shit being talked about me behind my back in High School FFS"
-
So it looks like this is another case of Mick's personal actions, vs Mick's actions in his official capacity as 'Senior Editor' at UKC. Simon/Toby, did the original email come from Mick's UKC address, or from a private one?
-
Hi Jesse Iesu
So you can see that the only changes we are requesting are that they make some effort to remove the vile and abusive language about Mick Ryan - that's it, nothing else.
Having seen the original email I know this to be untrue.
Sorry Simon I know you're keen for this to just blow over.
-
My view on this is that these exchanges should probably be kept off the public boards and that they create headaches for Toby, Simon and people at UKC if they are made public.
I also think that UKB users should refrain from posting publicly abusive messages directed at specific individuals as that also creates difficulties.
Just my two penneth :)
-
Hi Jesse Iesu
I am sorry to hear this. Please at least read the rest of this email to get a better impression of what happened rather than the misleading picture Simon Lee has presented.
We have sent several emails to Simon and Toby since they owned the site requesting them to remove abusive comments directed at Mick Ryan and myself (although mostly Mick being called a cunt repeatedly). Our reasoning is simply that we wouldn't tolerate anyone being treated like that on UKC and if they want to move in the same advertising market as we do then they should not allow such vile abusive language about Mick to stay in place. This could be especially significant if they are talking to the same advertising contacts who could well come across these nasty characterisations when browsing UKB. They have refused to remove the vile posts although they have generally sidelined developing threads and made some effort to reduce the visibility and stop it getting out of control.
The incident in question on the recent thread was when Bubba was posting again asking someone to punch Mick at the Stoney weekend. Mick quite rightly asked this to be removed (which it was) and copied in Nikki who works for Pod since he knew she had started advertising and also knew that she was probably not fully aware of the nature of the language and posting on UKB. This was not a UKC policy decision, it was Mick responding to someone threatening violence against him on UKB.
I am not sure exactly what happened next but I know Nikki was particularly upset about the DFBWGC thread that she found and was certainly happy that she had been prompted to look closer; any subsequent action was entirely hers. I believe she asked for Pod Sacs advertising to be pulled. We have had no more interaction with her.
So you can see that the only changes we are requesting are that they make some effort to remove the vile and abusive language about Mick Ryan - that's it, nothing else. This has consisted of a bunch of emails earlier in the year - maybe 2 sets of exchanges - and the latest incident. We haven't asked them to do anything else and haven't tried to influence them in any other way and further more, we wouldn't want to ever do that. So far they haven't complied and the posts and language are still there. As yet neither of them has offered an answer to the scenario I posed asking them how they would react if there were many threads dotted all over UKC, and being added to on a weekly basis, that contained the phrase "Toby/Simon is a cunt" or "would someone punch Simon Lee for me please". Please substitute your own name into those sentences and then ask yourself how unreasonable our request is.
Lately we have pretty much dropped the matter since I agree that stirring it up is likely to add fuel to the fire but I fully support Mick in his actions in this case to stop more abusive and threatening stuff being posted.
Please reconsider your decision since I am keen not to have valued contributors to UKC to be put off visiting because of misapprehensions spread by SImon's lazy reporting.
Regards
Alan
_________
Alan James, Director
UKClimbing - http://www.ukclimbing.com (http://www.ukclimbing.com)
Rockfax - http://www.rockfax.com (http://www.rockfax.com)
Either you do or you don't try and influence another site.
It should have been done as a person and not as a representative of UKC, because the posts were about an individual and not about UKC. It just happens that the person in question works for/is heavily involved with the running of UKC, but to use that hat is inappropriate.
If Mick is/was genuinely concerned for his safety in light of Bubba's comment then he should perhaps have contacted South Yorkshire Police the CPS as they take threats very seriously even though they are wrong to do so (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-paul-chambers-case-matters.html) (note that it was clear in that instance as it is in this that it was a joke and wasn't going to transpire in reality, so get a fucking grip Mick/Alan!)
-
I didn't delete my account, I just removed all my photos, ticklish, profile.
EDIT. can't be arsed getting embroiled in the Mick bullshit again.
-
We have already been asked to delete the correspondence that Iesu has posted. Frankly it is a tough call whether to comply with that or whether we need to publish everything we have received in connection with this ...
Someone most have plenty of time on their hands if they can monitor two sets of forums.
-
I was off the opinion that it should just die a death until I read this:
The incident in question on the recent thread was when Bubba was posting again asking someone to punch Mick at the Stoney weekend. Mick quite rightly asked this to be removed (which it was) and copied in Nikki who works for Pod since he knew she had started advertising and also knew that she was probably not fully aware of the nature of the language and posting on UKB . This was not a UKC policy decision, it was Mick responding to someone threatening violence against him on UKB.
As far as I am concerned it was out of order to cc someone else into what was a private request - I can see no motive other than spite to cc someone in - having worked in an office long enough it doesn't surprise me at all to see it done but then neither does it condone the action.
As for someone advertising on a board without ever checking out the site in the first instance... ::)
-
We have already been asked to delete the correspondence that Iesu has posted. Frankly it is a tough call whether to comply with that or whether we need to publish everything we have received in connection with this ...
Why on earth would there be any need to delete that? I rarely go on UKC these days anyway but I'm of a similar mind.
They have refused to remove the vile posts although they have generally sidelined developing threads and made some effort to reduce the visibility and stop it getting out of control
Recently (since the arrival of the IO) the number of 'vile' posts has been very minimal. I'm surprised that isn't improving relations between the two sites.
I have to say I find it pretty disapointing for a POD representative to pull their advertising. If you look back through many of the threads on this site, UKB champions their products (as well as Moon). This forum has its tongue firmly stuck in cheek most of the time. I guess that narrows it down to Moon from now on.
As for someone advertising on a board without ever checking out the site in the first instance... ::)
Exactly.
-
As yet neither of them has offered an answer to the scenario I posed asking them how they would react if there were many threads dotted all over UKC, and being added to on a weekly basis, that contained the phrase "Toby/Simon is a cunt" or "would someone punch Simon Lee for me please". Please substitute your own name into those sentences and then ask yourself how unreasonable our request is.
Been there, done that!!!!
I think Alan's request is reasonable. The problem is with Mick who has tried to walk a very fine line between holding a "professional" UKC role and putting forward his own personality and politicis - and failed to do so. Maybe in an ideal world everyone's slate would be wiped clean and there would be a fresh start and see how people behave from there...
-
As far as I am concerned it was out of order to cc someone else into what was a private request - I can see no motive other than spite to cc someone in - having worked in an office long enough it doesn't surprise me at all to see it done but then neither does it condone the action.
Exactly. I wonder what P o D himself would make this PC kneejerk reaction.
PoD as a company has just gone down in my estimation, and Mick has gone down even further than he was. What an embarrarrasing mess.
-
As far as I am concerned it was out of order to cc someone else into what was a private request - I can see no motive other than spite to cc someone in - having worked in an office long enough it doesn't surprise me at all to see it done but then neither does it condone the action.
Exactly.
:agree: :wank:
-
We have already been asked to delete the correspondence that Iesu has posted. Frankly it is a tough call whether to comply with that or whether we need to publish everything we have received in connection with this ...
As far as I can see UKC have shown a gobsmacking lack of professionalism towards you by underhandedly involving your advertisers in a private matter, so I don't see why you should respect their request to remove these posts.
I think you're behaving expectionally well considering they have actually lost you advertising income. I can't imagine Mick being so level headed if the situation were reversed...
-
:off:
Come you lot, this DFBWGC - start posting some T and A :-)
Off course, as soon as I hit "Post" I realised that this is the "poll:DFBWGC".
Can I punter myself? :-)
-
No, but we can.
-
This is absolutely ridiculous.
As usual MR takes the stance of "emperor of the internet" deviously playing people against each other, manipulating threads so to make it look as if people are saying things they aren't and generally and "controlling" things for his own ends ;) (remember his "...it's all panned out as I planned it...." email to GCW? This is obviously how he sees himself).
Then when someone makes a joke about him or calls him a name he goes crying to mummy Alan like a three year old.
I agree that UKC should have distanced themselves as a company from what is purely a personal matter and I also agree with everything that's been posted above regarding advertisers / ccing etc. The level of childish pettiness that they are sinking to would be laughable if it wasn't costing UKB's owners money.
Since the IOs took over and pointed out that calling MR a c*** was causing them grief, it's stopped. What more do these cunts want? <<<<< YES THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IRONIC
We haven't asked them to do anything else and haven't tried to influence them in any other way and further more, we wouldn't want to ever do that.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/china/learningenglish/specials/images/1548_match_of_the_da/416848_hill.jpg)
-
I have to say that Nikki has demonstrated the power of advertising- I will NEVER be buying any POD kit again.
The problem for UKC is that Mick uses his UKC address to send angry/threatening e-mails out. As such he is expressing the opinion of UKC, and it demonstrates that UKC use a bullying approach (yes, it may only be one person but the use of the company address is the important factor).
Can you not install a filter so whenever someone posts "Mick is a cunt" it automatically adds "in my opinion"? Sorted! It wouldn't take long to modify all the old comments either.
Jas, I was going to quote some of the juicy bits from old UKC e-mails to me, but I'd hate for them to contact the Overlords and ask them to delete it- it would cause too much hassle.
-
I have to say that Nikki has demonstrated the power of advertising- I will NEVER be buying any POD kit again.
That would seem a bit of an over reaction to me. Although it seems that Nikki has been played by Mick, for his own spiteful ends, if she looked through the site and found content (be it DFBWGC, swearing or something else) that she considered offensive, then I can understand why she may want to withdraw advertising on the site. I would see it as a reasonable ethical call in a grey area and, whether I agree with that call or not, it would not affect my decision to buy POD stuff.
-
Aren't those the type of things that should be taken into consideration BEFORE advertising? Its not as if they're hidden away.
-
Of course, but they obviously hadn't been seen had they. Are people not allowed to change their minds when they find out something new?
-
I have been out climbing this morning and ticked an 8a YYFY and just come back to this NNFN.
Toby and I hold no grudge against Nikki or Podsacs whatsoever and UKB users shouldn't either.
They are entirely at liberty to choose where there adverts should go and on whatever basis. Most importantly their products are good. The only person whio has acted in an improper manner is Mick Ryan and subsequently Alan with his stock email diverting blame onto Nikki/Podsacs. There is absolutely no reason for Nikki/Podsacs being embroiled in this shitfest of UKC's making which was no doubt an additional reason for them wanting to withdraw the advert. Furthermore they paid for the full four weeks they initially booked.
-
And another thing. This is the same Mick Ryan who was quite happy to go on the 8a.nu website and call Jens Larsen its owner a wanker. It takes your breath away.
-
This is the same Mick Ryan who was quite happy to go on the 8a.nu website and call Jens Larsen its owner a wanker.
On a basic definition of the word, this is most likely correct. Who doesn't? :wank:
-
Lagers - the point was - if you are a public figure and happy to dish it out you should be accepting of it too.
-
Toby is a cunt
would someone punch Simon Lee for me please
(they made me do it) (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,16005.msg280161.html#msg280161)
-
no email yet
post not deleted
my god, what is the internet coming to?