Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz
Hi Steve, since you have taken action to fix something, I think it would be helpful to better describe what the problem was that needed fixing, and what damage it was causing. I don't mean in terms of "signal to noise ratio being low" but in real concrete terms as to how both we, the Supporters and Members were being harmed, and of course how Epic the LLC was being harmed.
Since many of us feel that the method of fixing the problem is flawed, it might be better to clearly explain what the harm was and what the benefits of the fix would be. Again back to the risk (or cost)/benefit analysis concept. The risk/cost seems high, thus the benefit needs to be addressed and understood better.
For example, helping HH and his efforts without getting something back in return to me is not a very compelling reason to take such a large risk of diminishing the value and perception of the site to the users by such censorship, nor the cost of blocking us from the benefit of access to understanding of this alternate ski technique methodology.
If the benefits of this censorship were greater we might accept the risk and/or cost of the effort.
SMJ, I have endeavored to do this. I am not sure I can do any better job by expanding on my earlier statements, but I will make an effort to do so.
First, it has been an observation of a number of people both on the EpicSki management team and those who are Supporters that the quality of the threads and posts on the Technique forum have suffered a downturn over the past year or so. A number of long-time contributors stopped contributing, and the general tone degraded. Also, it seemed to a number of people that many of the more interesting threads turned downhill when someone injected posts that involved non-traditional terminology, unsupported supposition, and ad hominem fallacies used against EpicSki posters or the large ski teaching organizations. Furthermore, these posts tended to all reference a single ski teacher and his proprietary teaching system (complete with trademarks).
Second, through observation and investigation, it became clear that disruption of EpicSki technique discussions and hijacking of them for the purpose of encouraging consideration of that proprietary teaching system (effectively creating a marketing campaign) was at least partially orchestrated. A few participants neglected to understand the technical capabilities of the EpicSki team and so were observed in contradictory situations.
Therefore, it is our intent to bring all such activities into the open through dialog and arrangement between the two entities...or to eliminate the possibility of such activities that we have observed.
I claim that this is not censorship (and, in fact, that we cannot censure, given that the information is readily available both here and elsewhere on the web) and that it is an editorial-like decision made in an effort to improve the quality of EpicSki content. That is our intent. Whether or not it will succeed in achieving that will not be clear for some time.
Please note that we endeavored to use alternative means for quite a while, including personal pleas, private conversations, little nudges in threads, post infractions, and other less obtrusive approaches. They were unsuccessful.