or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Community Discussions & Forum News › TechTalk subforum interest?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TechTalk subforum interest? - Page 2

post #31 of 69
Thread Starter 
One of the moderators has come up with an option that I think will work out well. Bouncing this idea off the general public..

We can start to tag the title of specific threads with a specific header.
I would suggest we bold the tag. General threads would continue as before, as little moderation as possible.

We would setup some tighter guidelines and rules for moderation (hijacks flames, etc) and would moderate these specificly tagged thread more actively.
Like Greg's "Post video's of your skiing" thread we would delete or edit posts that don't follow the very specific rules.

My thoughts on what headers to use. and what they would include.

Tech Talk = skills; Physics; mechanics; of skiing

Teaching = exercises, how and why; class control tips; requests for lesson plan analysis or action plan suggestions.

KISS = laymans explainations for the non techically minded.

MA = Movement Analysis, Initial post should include Video or series of pictures. No pushing of specific teaching styles. Specific exercises from a teaching system would be allowed as long as they include the specific how and why the exercise would be used for this specific MA. Other topics in this area might include "how to do MA" exercises, Cause and effect, etc.
post #32 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lennyblake
Sounds like a great idea!! That way I wouldn't need to bother visiting epicski either during the ski season or the off seasons.

Nothing personal intended here: but, if I want to visit a heavily moderated forum kept restricted to participants with the "correct" views, I'll join realskiers.
My thought in this "Heavily moderated" forum was not to exclude any views as long as they were backed by good data. Exploring claims that were not well backed would be welcome so we could learn would have been fine too.

But see my above suggestion. Maybe we can have both.

DC
post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
One of the moderators has come up with an option that I think will work out well. Bouncing this idea off the general public..

We can start to tag the title of specific threads with a specific header.
I would suggest we bold the tag. General threads would continue as before, as little moderation as possible.

We would setup some tighter guidelines and rules for moderation (hijacks flames, etc) and would moderate these specificly tagged thread more actively.
Like Greg's "Post video's of your skiing" thread we would delete or edit posts that don't follow the very specific rules.

My thoughts on what headers to use. and what they would include.

Tech Talk = skills; Physics; mechanics; of skiing

Teaching = exercises, how and why; class control tips; requests for lesson plan analysis or action plan suggestions.

KISS = laymans explainations for the non techically minded.

MA = Movement Analysis, Initial post should include Video or series of pictures. No pushing of specific teaching styles. Specific exercises from a teaching system would be allowed as long as they include the specific how and why the exercise would be used for this specific MA. Other topics in this area might include "how to do MA" exercises, Cause and effect, etc.
Are you suggesting that all threads that are started concerning one of the above issues be treated in this way? I would hope that it would be up to the person starting an MA thread, for instance, as to whether he or she would want it treated as a heavily moderated, realskiers-like techtalk.

I'm not that crazy about the whole idea. I think the inquisitiveness of our posters in the instruction forum is what allows us to arrive at useful conclusions, as a result of the ensuing debate. Heavy moderation and a members-only discussion sounds like realskiers. No thanks!
post #34 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublediamond223
Are you suggesting that all threads that are started concerning one of the above issues be treated in this way? I would hope that it would be up to the person starting an MA thread, for instance, as to whether he or she would want it treated as a heavily moderated, realskiers-like techtalk.

I'm not that crazy about the whole idea. I think the inquisitiveness of our posters in the instruction forum is what allows us to arrive at useful conclusions, as a result of the ensuing debate. Heavy moderation and a members-only discussion sounds like realskiers. No thanks!
No,

If the thread starter wants to allow a thread to take it's own path, they just leave out the header. You are right about MA as a header however, maybe we can come up with a different header for MA that would be moderated.

Does that make more sense?
post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublediamond223
...I'm not that crazy about the whole idea. I think the inquisitiveness of our posters in the instruction forum is what allows us to arrive at useful conclusions, as a result of the ensuing debate. Heavy moderation and a members-only discussion sounds like realskiers...
Same here. In fact, in the interest of full disclosure, I used to hate thread drift and would rail against it privately to AC, stating that because of such a lack of discipline and organization and ability to stay on topic, blah, blah, newbies coming to Epic for info could never find info on a particular topic.

Well, more recently, I have come to feel that if the drift is within reason (eg, to another related technical topic, not to some personal matter), I think a bit of drift is one of the factors that makes the technical discussions on Epic so vital.

To accomodate my earlier objection, portfolios containing links to selected threads, or even selected posts within these threads could be generated to help those who have come seeking info. These portfolios of links shouldn't be static, but be updated and expanded as time goes on. This might be an ideal use of some Wiki pages.

Tom / PM
post #36 of 69
It seems to me that those opposed to moderation see it what ideas can be discussed, ala the "other" site.

Am I understanding correctly that ideas would not be moderated, but behavior would be moderated?

For example, someone could say that a ski is turned most efficiently by a blend of rotary and edging. I could say that I believe that pressure control is the only way to turn and no moderator input would be needed.

But if I said that pressure control is the only way and anyone who disagrees with that is an ignorant fool and can't ski for crap anyway, then the mods come in and do their thing.

The mods would not be the guru on the Mt top, but as bouncers?
post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tief schnee
It seems to me that those opposed to moderation see it what ideas can be discussed, ala the "other" site.

Am I understanding correctly that ideas would not be moderated, but behavior would be moderated?

For example, someone could say that a ski is turned most efficiently by a blend of rotary and edging. I could say that I believe that pressure control is the only way to turn and no moderator input would be needed.

But if I said that pressure control is the only way and anyone who disagrees with that is an ignorant fool and can't ski for crap anyway, then the mods come in and do their thing.

The mods would not be the guru on the Mt top, but as bouncers?
They are talking about going beyond that. Those are the rules now, pretty much. Personal attacks (at least direct ones) are not allowed.
post #38 of 69
I don't really know why you want to split up the forum or change it......it is pretty popular as it is.....I couldn't help but notice how the whole level of discussion in the ski teaching forum dropped a few notches when the race technique forum was set up....(or maybe it was always there...but just started enforcing it).

More splitting will only reduce the "critical mass" needed to keep it going. Have you noticed how splitting out the race technique discussions from the regular technical discussions caused this forum to drop on the google list....not sure if it cuased it, but I noticed the technical forum was about the 4th item on the google list under "ski technique" then it dropped to the second page.....

I further, I agree that some threads get hijacked...but most meander as needed.....often the topic starter is asking a specific question, which cannot be answered without brining in other concepts or a taking a bigger picture view.......if it ain't broke...don't fix it.
post #39 of 69
THE KEY to the success of EpicSki has been moderation - and the moderation. A forum which IN ADVANCE bills itself as HEAVILY MODERATED can succeed, leaving the abominable "Never ending thread" to those who have nothing better to do. Damit, the site is called EpicSKI. SKI. SKI.

Anyone who's warned in advance that the new forum is HEAVILY MODERATED can play by the rules or have their carping just erased. I'M FOR IT.

This site has made quite enough accomodation for frivolity and needs to have SOMEwhere to discuss stuff in a mechanical, objective way in which questions and answers play any equally important role.

At the same time, in my view, the forum would eschew frivolity as well as the "Socratic Method" - just stick to the facts, stick to the questions, stick to the answers, and let the chips fall where they may. The new forum would be attractive to those who do not want to play games, want to say what they think, and be subject to pertinent questions about their thoughts.

This may - or may not - be what dchan has in mind.

While I am delighted that EpicSki has become THE ski web site, I personally would appreciate a place to accomodate reality - NO humor, NO double entendres, NO trick questions, NO "Socratic Method" - just solid discussion. That way, we all could have fun in the less regulated sections and get down to brass tacks in the in the very, very highly regulated new forum. I work in the electric utility industry in Vermont, and please believe me - I DO know what "very, very highly regulated" means.

I must go now. Need to file a petition to secure authority to blow my nose.
post #40 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72
not sure if it cuased it, but I noticed the technical forum was about the 4th item on the google list under "ski technique" then it dropped to the second page.....
It's 4th for "skiing technique" and 4th page for "ski technique". Seems I need to do a little SEO...
post #41 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe
THE KEY to the success of EpicSki has been moderation - and the moderation.
Sorry, but I have to disagree somewhat. IMHO, the most fundamental reason behind the success of Epic has been intelligent, civil discussion and intelligent, knowledgeable participants. The realization that moderation could (and occasionally did) happen did indeed help to keep the discourse civil, and hence, helped retain the desirable participants, but, IMHO, moderation itself was only a contributing factor, not the main one. For example, there were many threads which were saved from disruption or propagating erroneous information by the participants themselves, not any moderation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe
...A forum which IN ADVANCE bills itself as HEAVILY MODERATED can succeed...
This may be true, but to be honest, most of the examples that I can think of in this category were effectively sterile and eventually withered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe
...At the same time, in my view, the forum would eschew frivolity as well as the "Socratic Method" - just stick to the facts, stick to the questions, stick to the answers, and let the chips fall where they may. The new forum would be attractive to those who do not want to play games, want to say what they think, and be subject to pertinent questions about their thoughts... I personally would appreciate a place to accomodate reality - NO humor, NO double entendres, NO trick questions, NO "Socratic Method" - just solid discussion. ...
I don't think anyone would ever accuse me (at least in my technical posts) of an excess of humor, double entendres, trick questions, "playing games", or anything but solid discussion, yet, in the threads that I've participated in, with a few notable exceptions, I have no complaints along the lines just mentioned, especially since the enlarged mod squad was sworn in, and some of the more "colorful" characters (mostly with a race background) have left. If anyone should want the forum characteristics you just described, it should be me, yet, I just don't see the need for intentionally heavy moderation, but do see the possible negative consequences of it, eg, as described in previous posts in this thread.

Tom / PM
post #42 of 69
Thread Starter 
Part of my motivation for this type of moderation is the loss of several potential great resources because of the constant hijacking and put downs of ideas. When talking to guys like Mike Rogan for instance, In person they were very interested in talking "tech" in many of it's forms regardless of who or which systems were teaching it. The part they didn't like was the fact that they might be constantly challenged by people not interested in learning or understanding but just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing or pushing their agenda. Mike is not the first I've heard this from by the way.
post #43 of 69
Dave, to throw out a concrete example, assume that your new forum was in place at the time Fastman and I were being flumoxed by the sophistry of daSlider in the old thread, "Get off those edges".

daSlider was not overtly rude, crude, or off topic, and he knew just enough science to sound to non-experts like he knew what he was talking about, even though he was unambigously and deeply wrong on many of his statements. Even worse, he would seemingly be able to support his arguments by references he would make to famous scientific works. The problem was that he really didn't understand the contents of these documents, and almost no one but Rick and I had the knowledge to call him on it.

How would you handle a situation like this using the model of heavy moderation that you proposed? For example, who determines that such a seemingly nice, courteous fellow is really doing little more than spewing nonsense to hear himself talk?

Tom / PM
post #44 of 69
Thread Starter 
I don't remember that thread too clearly but I would have had the moderators contact people like yourself and Rick to engage this person. If the person seemed to really be trying to understand and learn or explore, I probably would have let it continue. If it turned into a "this is my belief and nothing you can say will change my mind" as a moderator I would have contacted this person and confront them asking the reason they seem to want to push this issue. I've found that once confronted like this they often back down. I'll have to go back and read that thread again but It sounds like you 2 did that. So long as someone was challenging the correctness of the comments and getting everyone else and maybe even the person making these comments to really explore their beliefs then I would consider it good dialog.
post #45 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublediamond223
They are talking about going beyond that. Those are the rules now, pretty much. Personal attacks (at least direct ones) are not allowed.
And the speed limit is 65. You ever drive 65 and have everyone pass you?
post #46 of 69
[quote=dchan]No spouting one teaching system or another. Hopefully no agenda's other than good ski instruction. Technical info, teaching hints tips, exercises, skills concepts, etc..

We each have a teaching system. We're all unique.

Some here plant seeds. Then, sit back and see how it grows (Thanks Nolo)

Some here bring a light heart. (Thanks Weems)

Some bring the whole frickin' Encyclopedia. (Thanks BB)

Some are willing to announce their obvious backgrounds with their handles. (Thanks Physicsman)

Some do race (Thanks Slatz)

Some are to the point (Thanks Bonni)

For some this is a passion (Thanks Mod Squad)

Some with questionable backgrounds, are garrulous, self-proclaimed gurus, spewing forth ad-infinitum until they self destruct (See ya Fastman)

Some get riled when challenged. (Thanks A-man, or is it H-man now?)

How many supporters, members, lurkers are there now at Epic?

I've never had a lesson from any of the above. How do I know what they teach is good for me?

And we've all got opinions and if it gets heated, so be it, cuz people will see through it, and those participating can and will (with solid conviction)rise, and those that can't will show their immaturity, but censoring a thread? Hmmmmm

Hang in there, the trolls go away....

And for those too chicken to play, like Rogan, whatever. Sounds like Harb. And I don't fault how either of them make a living or how they're respected in the ski world, but if they don't want to have discussion and their respective cozy worlds (egos) are only "their way or the highway", fine. Have your realskiers, or lurk, as I'm sure they both have, and continue to do.

Me I'm passionate about this sport. Have been for all my life. Let's talk, discuss, share, disagree, get riled, whatever. Moderators should moderate. But, to eliminate emotion? I ski because of the emotion.

No emotion in the threads? Hey! I can't wait to get my new metronome to replace my plasma hdtv.

Dchan, you do a good job. Thanks. Bring 'em all on. Show you care.
post #47 of 69
"""Alas in the attempt to not moderate let the heated exchanges be part of our discussion, I often feel we can't actually explore some of the technical sides of skiing without getting "blasted" by emotion or as Weems coined "dogma of skiing"

I have been toying with the idea of requesting a subforum to this one that would be highly moderated."""

(Edited, because I messed up dchan's quote.)

dchan.....Have you considered setting up a sub-forum that would be open to posters, by invtation only? This sub-forum could be read by everyone, but not everyone could post to it.

Everyone could post comments to parallel threads that would probably be generated in the open Skiing Techniques forum. The open forum might suggest topics for the sub-forum.

As time goes by, more people would be invited into the sub-forum, based on the way that they posted in the open forum. This might help to make the open forum more civilized. And, of course, the members in the sub-forum would also post in the open forums.
post #48 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVnRT
"""Alas in the attempt to not moderate let the heated exchanges be part of our discussion, I often feel we can't actually explore some of the technical sides of skiing without getting "blasted" by emotion or as Weems coined "dogma of skiing"

I have been toying with the idea of requesting a subforum to this one that would be highly moderated."""

(Edited, because I messed up dchan's quote.)

dchan.....Have you considered setting up a sub-forum that would be open to posters, by invtation only? This sub-forum could be read by everyone, but not everyone could post to it.

Everyone could post comments to parallel threads that would probably be generated in the open Skiing Techniques forum. The open forum might suggest topics for the sub-forum.

As time goes by, more people would be invited into the sub-forum, based on the way that they posted in the open forum. This might help to make the open forum more civilized. And, of course, the members in the sub-forum would also post in the open forums.
Think about this.
You are going to have a discussion where members choose who they discuss with.?
Seems to go against the free flow of information
So now we are going to have to qualify ourselves to have a question cleared up or take part in a conversation or discussion with knowledgeable members.

So now we are going to limit discussion to a few and have them flame each other while the more moderate of us can't take part.?
It is usually the more involved/informed members here that get into the heated discussions about pmts/harb and it's psia /csia counterparts and such.
You get more lost tempers from these people than anyone here.

I am sorry PVnRT , this is a really bad idea. It would be a closed doors discussion and would make this forum something entirely differant

Members really need to be more respectful of dissenting opinions and let them try to hold up their opinions through reasoning and thoughtful discussions while proving their points with facts and reason and if they cannot ,then the forum has done it's job at presenting viewpoints that get viewed on their merits and judged by same
post #49 of 69
Thread Starter 
PVnRT

We discussed this before I even posted this thread and rejected it for the reasons Garry points out..

DC
post #50 of 69
OK. I'll go along with this. But let me make one more point.

Garry belives that the more involved/informed members are those who do the flaming and who lose their tempers. Maybe so.

When I suggested that only invited members would post in the sub-forum, I should have said that the invitations would go to those people who do not flame, rant, or get nasty.

Maybe these people would not be the most informed or most knowledgeable, but the discussion could be more civilized.
post #51 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVnRT
OK. I'll go along with this. But let me make one more point.

Garry belives that the more involved/informed members are those who do the flaming and who lose their tempers. Maybe so.

When I suggested that only invited members would post in the sub-forum, I should have said that the invitations would go to those people who do not flame, rant, or get nasty.

Maybe these people would not be the most informed or most knowledgeable, but the discussion could be more civilized.
Garry believes many are very intense about their beliefs and their knowledge and sometimes that intensity leads to sparks.
Many ,most , are calm until baited by trollish behavior
Please don't put words in my mouth about respected members of this forum
I have a lot of respect for them and wish to learn whatever i can from them.
post #52 of 69
This thread is full of irony.
post #53 of 69
irony: 1.a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

How so, MilesB?

I am stilly strongly opposed to this suggestion. I do not think it buys EpicSki anything, and has a strong likelihood of sufficiently quenching solid communication on technique throughout the forums. I think it attempts to solve a problem which, for the most part, doesn't exist.

I do have ideas that I'm working that will increase the technical content of EpicSki, but I believe that open communication under the already-established guidelines is our best option.
post #54 of 69
The more I think about it, the less atractive it becomes.

I do not think that we need new rules in the ski tech section, just enforcement of existing ones.
post #55 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
I don't remember that thread too clearly but I would have had the moderators contact people like yourself and Rick to engage this person. If the person seemed to really be trying to understand and learn or explore, I probably would have let it continue. If it turned into a "this is my belief and nothing you can say will change my mind" as a moderator I would have contacted this person and confront them asking the reason they seem to want to push this issue. I've found that once confronted like this they often back down. I'll have to go back and read that thread again but It sounds like you 2 did that. So long as someone was challenging the correctness of the comments and getting everyone else and maybe even the person making these comments to really explore their beliefs then I would consider it good dialog.
Good response. I like it.

Tom / PM
post #56 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tief schnee
...I do not think that we need new rules in the ski tech section, just enforcement of existing ones.
Another . The only thing I would possibly add is the word "proactive" in front of "enforcement".

Tom / PM
post #57 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tief schnee
I do not think that we need new rules in the ski tech section, just enforcement of existing ones.
I tend to agree. This is one area of the forum where, as Tom / PM notes, we could be more proactive and contribute to the consistency of the forum. I think that's already begun. Not to say we can't get better at it, mind you.
post #58 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
When talking to guys like Mike Rogan for instance, In person they were very interested in talking "tech" in many of it's forms regardless of who or which systems were teaching it. The part they didn't like was the fact that they might be constantly challenged by people not interested in learning or understanding but just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing or pushing their agenda. Mike is not the first I've heard this from by the way.
Mike and I spent quite a bit of time discussing his participation here, and he wasn't actually concerned with the discussion so much as he knew that he wouldn't have sufficient time to address the comments, questions, or challenges of those who would post in response to him. Part of my role is to help him understand that such is ok. There's an ebb and flow, and it's fine that he's here sometimes and gone sometimes.

Also, I think that many folks don't appreciate that not everyone is comfortable in semi-real-time written communication. Most of the ski coaches I have met are far more comfortable giving physical demonstrations and verbal cues. As a result, this medium is more challenging, and thus takes more time to communicate the same concepts. Just as when a non-native-English-speaker joins us here and many of us work hard to understand them so that we can jointly gain from the relationship, sometimes we need to recognize that different members of our community (both EpicSki and the wider ski community) communicate in different ways, and better in some than others. Working to provide the best of all for the good of the community is the vision that I have for EpicSki. I've got some ideas about how to do that. If you have some, feel free to let me know.

But, let's not spend time with undue negative conversation around any of the members of our community. We have a lot to learn from one another, so let's rather find ways that allow for the whole to benefit even more as each of the individuals do, too.
post #59 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
........ I think that's already begun. Not to say we can't get better at it, mind you.
It has and I like the fact that you are addressing the "issue" makes me.

As for your point in the second post, I am the poster boy for one who does not excel in a writen forum.

As some one with dyslexia, getting my thought to be conveyed clearly with written words is a huge struggle. If I were a 3rd party trying to judge tief's teaching ability from this forum, I would think he were a hack. I beleive, and have been told, I am a good teacher.

If I had a reputation, the risk/reward analysis would not encourage me to post here.
post #60 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tief schnee
It has and I like the fact that you are addressing the "issue" makes me.

As for your point in the second post, I am the poster boy for one who does not excel in a writen forum.

As some one with dyslexia, getting my thought to be conveyed clearly with written words is a huge struggle. If I were a 3rd party trying to judge tief's teaching ability from this forum, I would think he were a hack. I beleive, and have been told, I am a good teacher.

If I had a reputation, the risk/reward analysis would not encourage me to post here.
If we nurture the part of the community that Tief puts himself in we are all richer for it.
How do you preserve a secure environment so he can make his statement /voice his opinion and not be struck for a wording error or imperfectly written sentence?
It would take an environment that one would feel he could take a risk and speak of his/her understanding even if it is not totally accurate.
We would need a venue for him to be explained the wisdom of another opiniion.

That venue would have to be of a higher protocol of manners. If it can't be moderated by itself then it has to be moderated by the administrators through your mod squad.

What if a sticky of the intention of the instruction /technique explained the need for a more professional exchange of views.?


Some kind of higher level of politeness expected.
I don't know how to word this differantly. But this seems to me to be the crux of the dielmma of the exchange of views and the way an arguement can get personal and someone might feel defensive and strike back . It happens .

I believe a higher standard of this exchange must be upheld somehow.

The exchanges are so educational and interesting and i believe that they are the core of the Barking Bear forum.

I think that is what makes this forum so exceptional
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Community Discussions & Forum News › TechTalk subforum interest?