BCA Meeting CRoW Report

[Peter Burgess]

What bird? No Twitter Icon I can see?

I think the discussion is relating to this post and the comment beneath it.

(The twitter logo is next to the facebook logo at the top of the page, to the right of the 'Home...Logout' bar.)

Thanks for the link. It's not language I would have personally used. I have had far worse thrown at me on this site and elsewhere. Not many came to my defence on those occasions, and to be honest I didn't expect anybody to. We need Superman (sorry, Supercrow) to sort it all out so we all live in peace and harmony and don't piss each other off. Or perhaps we should all accept that manners go out of the window on occasion.

 

[cap n chris]

It is a prerequisite for access to have received conservation education beforehand in certain parts of Spain (I imagine this is also the case elsewhere such as Belgium for example). Perhaps if access is improved, it should be after a prior conservation induction - the simplest induction being signs at cave entrances pointing out behaviour which should be obvious, but which clearly is not in some instances.

Education AND better access is what we should all be after.

Agreed. But the latter should be the prize for completing the former.

 

[MarkS]

I'd also like to echo the thanks above, both to Tim and to the BCA, for dealing with this tricky issue so thoroughly, transparently, and efficiently. 

 

[fredthedog]

( scraping the bottom of the barrel ??)  : :

No, that's taking an icon (or one very like it) that someone on here used to use and adding a Hitler moustache. I call Godwin's Law. Especially when the person concerned has no ability to defend themselves on here any more.

 

[NewStuff]

( scraping the bottom of the barrel ??)  : :

No, that's taking an icon (or one very like it) that someone on here used to use and adding a Hitler moustache. I call Godwin's Law. Especially when the person concerned has no ability to defend themselves on here any more.

You don't for a second think he brought that on himself with his shenanigans?

Yes, it's harsh, and probably the sentiment is one that *many* on here will agree with. The problem is, I don't know many famous control freaks that didn't commit atrocities that could be used in place of it... any suggestions?

 

[Pitlamp]

it is sad to see on twitter a very personal attack on Tim, especially as he is doing what has been asked of him from BCA. Fortunately Tim must have big shoulders as he has conducted himself above this personal attack
and whether cavers agree or disagree with Crow or in that matter anything else we should keep things factual and not fall to these depths of personal insults

I had a quick glance at that - and I agree those words are probably not appropriate. Then again I have no knowledge of what discussion led up to it. (Maybe those words on Twitter would be easier to understand if the whole conversation leading up to the post was known? I don't know - just trying to think it through logically.)

I'm one of a large number of active cavers who will be disappointed by some aspects of decisions taken by the BCA meeting at the weekend. But I'm not going to make negative comments and I wholeheartedly agree with the last line of Badger's post above. Let's not fall out folks; it never gets things sorted . . . .

 

[Madness]

Especially when the person concerned has no ability to defend themselves on here any more.

Why? Has he been banned? I assumed he had left of his own choice. In which case he could come back and defend his Twitter comments.

 

[droid]

Hear hear Jenny.

I think it's fair to say that "education AND better access" has been the consensus at all recent CNCC meetings and the CNCC have been unanimously in favour of CRoW.

In which order?

 

[Pitlamp]

Ah - I just realised that my most recent post above might be taken by some as justification for those adverse comments being discussed. It wasn't - it's just that we don't know the background to these words. There's often more to a situation than at first meets the eye.

Really, all I was saying was, let's keep things in proportion and remember that we all have a great deal in common.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Especially when the person concerned has no ability to defend themselves on here any more.

Why? Has he been banned? I assumed he had left of his own choice. In which case he could come back and defend his Twitter comments.

Your assumption is incorrect.

 

[fredthedog]

( scraping the bottom of the barrel ??)  : :

No, that's taking an icon (or one very like it) that someone on here used to use and adding a Hitler moustache. I call Godwin's Law. Especially when the person concerned has no ability to defend themselves on here any more.

You don't for a second think he brought that on himself with his shenanigans?

Yes, it's harsh, and probably the sentiment is one that *many* on here will agree with. The problem is, I don't know many famous control freaks that didn't commit atrocities that could be used in place of it... any suggestions?

There are no doubt a lot of people on here and elsewhere who could be described as control freaks, but I think you'll find that Hitler was a lot more than just a control freak.

It now seems acceptable on here to get at people by poking fun at their avatars. I now seem to be on the receiving end of this same sort of 'humour'. As a relative newcomer to the forum, that strikes me as bullying and unpleasant and certainly doesn't encourage participation.

 

[fredthedog]

Agreed. But the latter should be the prize for completing the former.

Agreed. Otherwise it's a case of putting the cart before the horse.

 

[David Rose]

Why use an avatar at all, and why not your real name, fredthedog? Why not just your actual identity and a photo of yourself? I realise many don't, including the estimable Badlad (aka Tim Allen) and Pegasus (his equally estimable wife, Jane). On the other hand, most forum users know who they are.

If you don't mind, would you mind saying who you are? You obviously have a lot to contribute to the debate, which I'm sure everyone will welcome - even if they disagree with you.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Agreed. But the latter should be the prize for completing the former.

Agreed. Otherwise it's a case of putting the cart before the horse.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to have a cave conservation theory exam that people have to pass before they can apply for entry to your caves? That will be fun to watch.

 

[fredthedog]

Why use an avatar at all, and why not your real name, fredthedog? Why not just your actual identity and a photo of yourself? I realise many don't, including the estimable Badlad (aka Tim Allen) and Pegasus (his equally estimable wife, Jane). On the other hand, most forum users know who they are.

If you don't mind, would you mind saying who you are? You obviously have a lot to contribute to the debate, which I'm sure everyone will welcome - even if they disagree with you.

I'm using one of my standard internet avatars, which very easily tracks through my online presence. There is only one site on which I use an actual photo of myself, and that is in a very different, professional, context. My standard avatars tend to be either bassets or raccoons. I don't even have photos of myself to use, and didn't realise it was compulsory on here to use your actual photo and name. Looking around, I see very few who do, either.  Your request strikes me as a form of attempted doxing and even bullying. Why can't I simply interact on here as many others do?

If you want to dox me, go ahead. But on many internet forums doxing is a bannable offence. I'm not a hothouse flower and have been around caving and caving politics for 30 years but unless and until everyone on here has to introduce themselves and use actual photos, I see no reason why I should be bullied into doing so. I'm not saying it's your intention to bully me or to be malicious, but that's the effect your request is having. You claim others are turning this into a personal argument, but you are doing the exact same thing to me. Trying to bring personalities into the debate. When all users are required to identify themselves by real name and photo, I'll happily do the same. But until it's a level playing field, I'm not being drawn into that game.

 

[fredthedog]

So what are you going to do? Are you going to have a cave conservation theory exam that people have to pass before they can apply for entry to your caves? That will be fun to watch.

Have this debate with Cap'n Chris not me. I've no intention of interacting further with someone who sees doxing as an acceptable debating strategy and uses avatars seemingly to bully and intimidate.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Well said Fred.

 

[Madness]

Especially when the person concerned has no ability to defend themselves on here any more.

Why? Has he been banned? I assumed he had left of his own choice. In which case he could come back and defend his Twitter comments.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Please explain.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I assumed he had left of his own choice.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Please explain.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Madness]

Why use an avatar at all, and why not your real name, fredthedog? Why not just your actual identity and a photo of yourself? I realise many don't, including the estimable Badlad (aka Tim Allen) and Pegasus (his equally estimable wife, Jane). On the other hand, most forum users know who they are.

If you don't mind, would you mind saying who you are? You obviously have a lot to contribute to the debate, which I'm sure everyone will welcome - even if they disagree with you.

Avatars and forum names are just part of the culture of forums. Some people may want to use their real name and photo, others may not. There's nothing untoward or sinister about it. We should not be trying to force people to use their real names if they wish not too.

I use 'Madness' on all the forums that I'm registered with - it's a nickname that I've had for 28 years and all my friends know me by it.