# Garmin filleting Active Captain - new map!



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Garmin dicing, slicing and serving a fillet of Active Captain...using their map... Chopping your photos and routes....

And they steal your content for free.

(like this forum and others you have no right to use your own contributions. i.e if you decided you last 1000 posts could make a book you can not use your posts! You don't own them. Sail nets poppa owns them.)

But that's the quid pro quos to still getting Active Captain without cost.



> Free - and Getting Better
> 
> The ActiveCaptain Community will remain a free resource, connecting you with user-generated information for boaters. We are committed to growing the community with you, so watch for more updates. Happy boating!


Here's the details...



> Get Ready for an Updated Online Experience	View Online
> Garmin
> 
> ActiveCaptain Community Update
> ...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Unfortunately, this isn't new. We discussed this issue at length in my previous AC thread. What's more important than ownership of the info/data (which has always been part of the AC TOS) - is *LIABILITY*. AC changed its TOS terms a few years ago to put the liability for incorrect/unverified information on the boater - not AC (who claimed to "verify" that very data).

This means AC gets to own the data free and clear, but YOU get sued for that data if someone comes to trouble with it.

Tidy, eh?

Have you seen Garmin's TOS on this stuff now? I'd be very curious whether they've maintained this same clause.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Well, the TOS I can find on Garmin's site does address it somewhat - and they're not on the hook:



> Featured Content; Advertising. Some marinas, boatyards and other businesses whose services and locations are displayed on the Sites pay for certain promotional features, including display prominence and eligibility for promoted status. Only these paying advertisers and/or featured marinas ("ActiveCaptain Community Featured Marinas") may post promotional content on the Sites. If you are an ActiveCaptain Community Featured Marina, additional ActiveCaptain Community Featured Marina Terms may apply. ActiveCaptain Community Featured Marinas and other business users are prohibited from sending unsolicited direct marketing messages to users.
> 
> Garmin has no responsibility for the content posted by ActiveCaptain Community Featured Marinas or any advertisers, licensees or other business users. Garmin may publicly display advertisements and other information adjacent to or included with your User Submissions. You are not entitled to any compensation for such advertisements. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising are subject to change at any time without notice to you.
> 
> ...


But this is more the corporate-wide TOS. Because I won't touch the app itself, I don't know what its specific terms are - but you who are interested should take a close look.

With a 1.7 star rating, I think the market is already speaking.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Having been a forum admin and contributor elsewhere, when that forum DID in fact print a book compilation of message threads, I can tell you the law in the US (which we very carefully ran by costly counsel to make sure of) ain't so.

You, as the author of YOUR messages, retain full copyright to them unless you specifically assign some of them away. A forum normally does not "take" your copyright, in in fact it only gets the rights to "compilation copyright" meaning, it has the rights to make use of the entire thread, from multiple authors, unless there has been a legal transfer otherwise.

Similarly, if someone writes a letter (posts a message) TO YOU, then as the recipient of that letter, you have always been allowed to reproduce it, because it was correspondence intended FOR YOU.

So you can't reproduce an entire forum thread by fifty members chattering about, but you certainly haven't assigned away your rights to your own message posts, unless the forum has very cleverly snuck something in the "Terms and Conditions" and the copyright courts tend to think uninformed consents are worth the paper they aren't written on.

And yes, this was after the US became a Berne Convention signatory, it should sill be current law here and in the other Berne signatories.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

While I see the concern, I have bigger boating things to be worried and concerned about. It isn't like I believe everything available online is correct or that every customer or professional review is right. The number of AC posts/reviews I've read that are opposite to each other is endless and I just look at them as a "piece of the puzzle", not the truth.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Red Head said:


> As I understand it (and I'm the author of the original TOS prior to Garmin's changes), users own the copyright to their submissions. The TOS provide Garmin with a license to use that data:
> 
> Much of these requirements come out of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 section 230. Were it not for that federal law, no websites containing reviews, user content, or forums would exist because of liability.
> 
> So any discussion of what "the man" is trying to do really needs a full understanding of the various laws. It's a complex topic and doesn't lend itself to shoot-from-the-hip assumptions. The bottom line is that if you don't want to provide your input to share with the community, don't submit it. If you want to add to the data for the community, add it. The responsibility is always to the reader about the validity of any content they see. That's true of ActiveCaptain, forums like this, and guidebooks (which have their own disclaimers), nautical charts, and nearly everything you read online. Nothing has changed although it appears to be fertile ground for those with an agenda to pull pieces out of context to push their agenda.


Hey Jeff. Howzithangin?

I didn't know you were an attorney.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Red Head said:


> As I understand it (and I'm the author of the original TOS prior to Garmin's changes), users own the copyright to their submissions.


Thanks


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Red Head said:


> As I understand it (and I'm the author of the original TOS prior to Garmin's changes), users own the copyright to their submissions. The TOS provide Garmin with a license to use that data:
> 
> Much of these requirements come out of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 section 230. Were it not for that federal law, no websites containing reviews, user content, or forums would exist because of liability.
> 
> So any discussion of what "the man" is trying to do really needs a full understanding of the various laws. It's a complex topic and doesn't lend itself to shoot-from-the-hip assumptions. The bottom line is that if you don't want to provide your input to share with the community, don't submit it. If you want to add to the data for the community, add it. The responsibility is always to the reader about the validity of any content they see. That's true of ActiveCaptain, forums like this, and guidebooks (which have their own disclaimers), nautical charts, and nearly everything you read online. Nothing has changed although it appears to be fertile ground for those with an agenda to pull pieces out of context to push their agenda.


My only agenda is, and always has been, to highlight the _reality_ behind these various apps. Most sailors don't fully understand these technologies and/or the business/legal aspects behind what's going on with the data they harvest. After all, there's a reason Zuckerberg was on Capitol Hill testifying about this stuff.

So I think it's important for sailors (including me) to know a bit more about that.

BUT unlike "Red Head" (Jeff I assume) says above - it's really NOT that complicated, unless one needs it to seem that way. For example, the part of the TOS that Jeff quoted above pertains only to you granting Garmin a "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license" to the info you put into AC.

So here, we're talking about, as Jeff points out, copyright - ownership. You own it, yes - but they can do anything they want with it for their own purposes and profit - forever. And they don't owe you a dime - ever.

However, what is NOT in that snippet that, in the case of boating, is FAR more important - is LIABILITY surrounding this data _you own_ and are broadcasting to the entire boating world _through_ Garmin.

For example, the first sniff of the liability issue is this part of that same paragraph: "By submitting material to any Site, *you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such material has expressly granted*..."

Now, GarmAC being a site that uses crowdsourcing to harvest its license-able data essentially for free - you might automatically assume that it's always YOUR data you're putting in. But what if you come across a warning about a hazard somewhere online (via the CG or some other source) and you put that wording into that marker on AC (which goes on a lot actually)? Read that sentence above again. Did the CG, or other source, expressly grant to YOU - and therefore Garmin - these rights? If not, who is on the hook?

So, what was posted above by Jeff is only one paragraph of the GarminAC TOS. And it certainly doesn't tell the whole story...which makes this part of his statement above very telling...



> ...it appears to be fertile ground for those with an agenda to pull pieces out of context to push their agenda.


I don't know what's in the rest of that TOS from Garmin these days. Maybe Jeff can share the whole thing to clear it up...and we can dispense with the notion of "agendas".

But what I can do here - for those interested - is bring in my previous post on this topic that shows how AC itself (prior to the Garmin purchase) modified its TOS over the years as it understood the implications of ownership vs. liability in this data.

Post to follow...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

PREVIOUS POST HERE

+++++++++

I've started looking more closely into this crowdsourcing approach to navigation - with an eye toward the liability it creates. As we all know, there is a good deal of liability in our world of boating...unfortunately. Lots of stuff can go wrong.

I remember reading a comment by the owner of AC as to how much they've been spending on legal fees over the last year or so (it was on FB I think) - and I'm beginning to see why.

Here is a pretty good, brief summary of one aspect of this - which has been abundantly shown in this thread:

404 Resource Missing - Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC)



> From an intellectual property perspective, tapping into the intelligence of a crowd potentially can provide a vast, yet inexpensive, resource and mechanism for acquiring new ideas, solutions, or content. And crowdsourcing likewise can result in the consuming public becoming more invested in a product, service, or activity and its ultimate success. But crowdsourcing also presents risks, of which your client should be aware.


And then this longer - yet more specific explanation...



> Of all sources for designs, crowdsourced designs involve the highest risk of infringement because of the large number and anonymous nature of contributors and the consequent difficulties associated with clearance. Even if warranties or indemnification concerning the non-infringing origins of the work can be obtained, they may be worthless. Importantly, a company must obtain complete written assignment of rights. Further, companies using crowdsourcing need to address the use of the designer's name and likeness.
> 
> If your company is concerned with owning the result of the crowdsourcing project, as it often would be, crowdsourced designs protected by copyright involve additional challenges because crowdsourced works might not qualify as works made for hire. Because contributors likely are not considered employees under U.S. copyright law, the only way a crowdsourced work can be eligible for work for hire status is if the work falls within one of the statutorily enumerated categories and the parties expressly agree the work is for hire. If a work is not considered a work made for hire, termination of transfer issues can crop up, allowing the original creator of the work to reclaim ownership of the work after a statutory period of time, despite having assigned the work to your company.
> 
> Adding another wrinkle, crowdsourced contributor contracts may be in the form of electronic click-through agreements because much of crowdsourcing happens over the Internet. While courts generally uphold these agreements, courts have yet to address the validity of such contracts within the context of crowdsourcing. See e.g. ESL Worldwide.com, Inc. v. Interland, Inc., 06-CV-2503 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2006) (upholding clickthrough agreement including forum selection clause); Person v. Google Inc., 456 F.Supp.2d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (upholding the venue selection clause in Google's mandatory clickthrough AdWords contract). Also, with crowdsourced projects, insurance may not cover liability or the full extent of potential damages for an infringement claim.


Now, the above piece seems to be directed toward the risk for the company. But with a model where that information is crowdsourced by the company _then monetized and licensed to third-parties_ - how does that liability transfer?

Now, I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me there are three aspects to this liability:

1. A boater trusting the app's data to be accurate (supported by the app's user mentality that the "local knowledge" markers are more accurate than charts) hits a charted rock and sinks because the depth for that rock is mis-stated by "the crowd" in the app. Who is liable and why?

2. If users are providing the information - for free (not work for hire) - which is then being monetized, what does the ownership of the information (the IP) look like? This is critical because it lays out the trail of responsibility for such information in terms of liability.

3. What responsibility does the third party who licenses this data have in such a trail of liability? In other words, if I'm using a Garuno chartplotter which is showing me the errant app marker above when I smack the rock (I do have a history you know) - does Garuno bear responsibility?

So, lots of interesting wrinkles here. But one of the first indications of this is actually evident (from what I can see) in the evolution of AC's Terms of Service over the past couple of years (you can see these variations using https://web.archive.org/web/20121020....com/terms.php)

2012:


> All materials and content displayed on the ActiveCaptain™ and CaptainRated™ websites ("Sites") or transferred and displayed on other products or websites, including, but not limited to, text, images, illustrations, audio and video clips are protected by or consist of copyrights, trademarks, service marks, and/or other intellectual property rights (here and after "Intellectual Property"). The Intellectual Property is governed and protected by United States and worldwide copyright, trademark, and/or other intellectual property laws and treaty provisions, privacy and publicity laws, and communications regulations and statutes. The Intellectual Property is owned or controlled by Active Corporation ("Active") or other parties that have licensed to Active the right to use their Intellectual Property or the right to market their products and/or services (collectively the "IP Providers").
> 
> It is important that ratings and reviews be relevant, helpful, and trustworthy. Therefore, Active reserves the right to edit or remove any review that contains:...


All IP is owned by AC - though, as you can see in the last sentence, the crowdsourced data, the ratings and reviews, aren't clearly bundled with that IP. But you've promised that the information you're putting in is "trustworthy" (accurate). What happens when it's wrong? We've already seen many instances where this was the case. Whose responsibility is that? Of course, at this point in the TOS - it's still a bit gray as to who owns that data - and who bears responsibility for it.

2013-2014


> All materials and content displayed on the ActiveCaptain™, CaptainRated™, eBoatCards™ websites (Sites) or transferred and displayed on other products, applications, apps, or websites, including, but not limited to, text, images, illustrations, audio, and video clips are protected by or consist of copyrights, trademarks, service marks, and/or other intellectual property rights (here and after called Intellectual Property). The Intellectual Property is governed and protected by United States and worldwide copyright, trademark, and/or other intellectual property laws and treaty provisions, privacy and publicity laws, and communications regulations and statutes. The Intellectual Property is owned or controlled by Active Corporation (Active) or other parties that have licensed to Active the right to use their Intellectual Property or the right to market their products and/or services (collectively the IP Providers).
> 
> It is important that Intellectual Property including reviews and ratings on the Sites be relevant, helpful, and trustworthy. Therefore, Active reserves the right to edit or remove any Intellectual Property that contains:...


Okay - here we go. All IP is now owned by AC, and the crowdsourced data is now specifically listed as IP in that last sentence. So, providing trustworthy data is up to you - but AC owns it when you do.

But now let's look at the current wording of the TOS:

2015


> Intellectual Property Owned by Us and Our Licensors
> All Intellectual Property posted or provided by us is owned by us or other parties that have licensed to Active the right to use their Intellectual Property or the right to market their products and/or services (collectively, the "IP Providers"). All applications, apps, and modules (collectively, the "Software") used on the Sites is owned by us or licensed to us by other parties ("Software Providers", and together with IP Providers, collectively the "Providers").
> 
> Intellectual Property Owned by You
> ...


Now, suddenly, YOU own and are responsible for your data. AC is just licensing it - for free. AC maintained that ownership for years - and has just reversed it. Why do you think that is? I think I can now see where those legal fees are going.

Liability without compensation? Wow. After reading this, I'm very, very glad I closed my account. Not even the hat is worth that in my opinion.

What's that old saw? "If you're not paying, the product is you."

+++++++++

As they say in the old world..."caveat servus".


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Name the last recreational crowdsource information provider that was successfully sued for their content. Lord knows, they who complain the loudest about this issue would probably be the first example, based on contributions here. 

How many people have posted crowd sourced info, on this forum, to go buy cheap Chinese power controllers? What if one burns a reader's boat down? Liable? 

There is absolutely nothing unusual about AC from just telling someone information at the bar. There is absolutely no commercial reasonableness to pursue. It's also only those that can read this new language that can make use of it. Sociologists are doing some incredible things with crowdsourced data these days and in fractions of the time.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Red Head said:


> You're right - it doesn't happen that way.
> 
> The liability lies with the publisher.


Can you show us the language from the TOS (either your old ones or Garmin's current AC version) that states this?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Yes - I can certainly understand why.

All I'll say to the readers is simply look at ALL the language in the TOS (not just selective snippets) and compare it to what is claimed by Red Head/Jeff. It's not nearly as complicated or obscure as he would have you think.

Then you can make an informed choice. I did.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

smack

I’m going to sue all the writers and publishers of cruiser guides, like Waterway Guide. I’m sick and tired of them making a crappy destination sound good, a below average to average marina sound like 5 Star, etc etc

Get a freaking grip!!!!!! Its no wonder people hate lawyers!


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Don0190 said:


> smack
> 
> I'm going to sue all the writers and publishers of cruiser guides, like Waterway Guide. I'm sick and tired of them making a crappy destination sound good, a below average to average marina sound like 5 Star, etc etc
> 
> Get a freaking grip!!!!!! Its no wonder people hate lawyers!


Damn&#8230; I'm in trouble now :frown.

To be fair, it's not the publishers, editors and writers Smack is talking about. It's the users who provide their intellectual property for free that are theoretically at risk.

So&#8230; this discussion forced me to open up Gamin/AC's Terms of Use. Here's the pertinent section. Sure sounds like Smack is correct. I'll add my annotations and stresses in [red].



> *Public Forums and Communication
> *
> "Public Forum" means an area, site or feature offered as part of any Site that offers the opportunity for users to submit content ("User Submissions") for viewing by one or more Site users, including without limitation a message board, forum, social community environment, conversation page, messaging function, review or blog.
> 
> ...


So Smack is correct, and the ToU are quite explicit about this. Users bear the legal and financial risk of any "damages suffered by other users" from an "legally actionable", and presumably successful, claims.

AND, Smack is correct that the poster is providing a legal affirmation (is warranting) that the poster has the legal right to publish and grant Garmin the right to do whatever-the-heck-it-wants to the material you post. SO, if you're copying information from another source, you are theoretically in legal doo-doo.

All this said, I would love to know if there are _any_ successful cases in this regard. Heck, I'd like to know how many - if ANY - law suits have been brought against Joe-Blow sailor who has posted a comment on AC that has proven to be false and has resulted in damage to another user. I'm willing to bet the numbers are vanishingly small, approaching zero.

There have certainly been law suits brought forward with regard to libel and defamation. But I'm unaware of any cases where someone is claiming damages from a simple contributor to any crowd sourced site.

Still &#8230; it's clear Garmin/AC is attempting to offload all the legal risk onto the contributors, while at the same time extracting all the financial reward. Sadly though, this is not unusual. I've seen too many contracts (mostly in my professional writing world) that are exactly the same.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Smacky can you please post a specific example of a poster of information on AC who had been sued ? 

I understand the TOS posting

Creating an issue to rail about when no one ever had been sued is like making an issue against cutting the tag off the pillows . 

Please don’t turn this innocent thread into a holy grail diatribe posting against the previous owner of AC. We all know from previous posts you have made you seem to have a personal vendetta against him .


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

The only alternative I can think of Jeff is that the company, in this case Garmin, accept the legal liability of what they publish — like in the good old days of publishing. 

Of course this would greatly increase the legal risk, especially for companies like Active Captain, whose entire business model relies on crowd sourced data (much like SN here). It may make the business too risky … that would be a business decision. 

Regardless, the Terms of Use are extremely explicit; the contributor is the one bearing the risk. At least, that is what Garmin is attempting to do with this contract. In practice, I really doubt any court would let Garmin (or AC in the past) hide behind this document if there was a real case brought forward with significant damages around a specific posting.

And like I say, I am unaware of any such law suit even being filed, let alone being successful.

… but on the flip side (how may flips is this now ), if it’s so unlikely, why is Garmin’s TOU so explicit and, I would say, nasty in it’s offloading of all risk? SN’s Terms of Use are no where near as nasty (although they probably lead to the same legal state).


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> ...Please don't turn this innocent thread into a holy grail diatribe posting against the previous owner of AC. We all know from previous posts you have made you seem to have a personal vendetta against him .


Please don't take my posts as an attack on Garmin/AC. I don't know Smack's and Jeff's history here (and sounds like I don't want to know). I do know how to read contracts and legal documents, and this one is very explicit, and pretty nasty, in offloading all risk to the contributor.

I fully agree with you that the real risk to the contributor is tiny - approaching zero. I've never even heard of a law suit being filed, let alone being successful, within the context discussed here. But one has to ask, if the risk is so negligible, why does Garmin (and I'm assuming, AC before it) feel the need to be so complete in its offloading of risk?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

As I said, get a grip! It’s 2018 you you understand the world you live in? You really read every “terms” in the rhings you use on the Internet? This crap s everywhere and you probably use stuff dozens of times a day that you have agreed to ******** terms for.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I take it those that find the liability language in Garmin’s TOS shocking have never hired a corporate lawyer. I have 6 that work for me. They live for dreaming up scenarios that don’t exist and writing covering language. Makes them feel good. 

While Garmin’s TOS sounds scary, the fact remains that you have no actual liability to assume in the first place. The only scenario I find possibly prosecutable is a posting with malicious intent. Just being wrong is not a crime.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> ...While Garmin's TOS sounds scary, the fact remains that you have no actual liability to assume in the first place. The only scenario I find possibly prosecutable is a posting with malicious intent. Just being wrong is not a crime.


It may not be a crime, but it certainly is possible to fall within the bounds of civil action.

Clearly Garmin believes it is a possibility, otherwise they would not have this language in their contract (Terms of Use). I'm not saying it's unusual - I see it all the time in my work. And yes, lawyers will go over board with crazy language. And as I said, I doubt if it would actually shield Garmin in the bizarre case (which I can't imagine) where this would produce a winnable civil case.

But regardless, the contract does EXPLICITLY place all risk onto the users, while at the same time extracting all commercial value from said contribution, AND asking you to warrant facts which most users probably have no idea about. It's a very one-sided contract, and totally unnecessary IF what you say is true.



Don0190 said:


> As I said, get a grip! It's 2018 you you understand the world you live in? You really read every "terms" in the rhings you use on the Internet? This crap s everywhere and you probably use stuff dozens of times a day that you have agreed to ******** terms for.


So are you arguing we should live in ignorance? That we shouldn't read these contracts? That we shouldn't try and act rationally, and understand where we may be putting ourselves at risk?

Pretty bizarre argument&#8230;


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I’m saying people don’t read them and just accept them. Or are you saying you read every one and understand them?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Don0190 said:


> I'm saying people don't read them and just accept them. Or are you saying you read every one and understand them?


Still not clear what you're arguing for - ignorance? That it's a good thing that people don't read them? I don't get it&#8230;

I agree with you, most people don't read them. And even fewer understand them, but that is clearly intentional on the part of companies and their lawyers. If people did read them, companies like Garmin/AC likely wouldn't be able to get away with such one-side Terms of Use.

We all seem to agree the risk is minimal. If so, there's no reason to have such onerous terms. But since most people don't read them, companies can get away with dumping all potential liability on its users, while extracting all monetary value. If you're fine with that, then good for you. I bet most people, if they understood the Terms of Use, would NOT be fine with it. Which is why companies try and obfuscate what people are actually agreeing to.

I know this is rampant (I keep saying so). But that doesn't make it right.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Quick question Jeff - do you still have an interest in the "Sites" referenced in Garmin's AC TOU and/or any other Garmin business interests? Are you acting here as a spokesman for Garmin?

Just want to be clear what we're dealing with.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

The United States, which is run by lawyers, is probably the only country where a suit could be filed concerning all the nonsense that has been posted so far, but I do not think it would go very far. After all, does Fodor's, AAA, or any of the other publishers of such guides ever get sued successfully? And we all know that any information on the internet is true as well as information gathered from the public in general, is always accurate and reliable....... Which is why there is so many cases of identity theft. Get a grip, humanity is generally stupid, those who do not understand their own shortcomings and foibles will always look for someone to blame, and if they have a sleazy enough attorney and a hack judge they sometimes can get a judgement. This is exactly why I do not perform any work in the residential world of refrigeration as there is always somebody looking for a free lunch.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Red Head said:


> You continue to miss one major point. Whether or not any of those terms about liability to the user are mentioned in a TOS like the one that ActiveCaptain had, it doesn't matter. The liability is with the user, not the website. Period.
> 
> Wikipedia has a page dedicated to Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act - I can't post links yet (sorry).


Thanks Jeff. Interesting reading. I'm not an American, so not up on all your laws. It *is* quite the blanket protection. Although there are some exceptions, specifically around intellectual property claims. This is interesting given the explicit IP warrants in the Garmin/AC TOS. Sounds like it's trying to bridge that gap in the law.

But you're right. It does seem to offer broad protection from most claims. Most countries do not offer such broad protections, which I guess is why most of these services are based in the USA.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

The impact of the corporatization of Active Captain is a topic for healthy discussion.

Rants, venom, past vendettas, and years-old quotes are not. Please STOP IT.

Three topics that always seem destined for banishment to PRWG: catamarans, radar, and Active Captain. Good grief!


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I haven't read the whole thread, but it seems as though there might be some kind of bad blood or something between 1 or 2 posters and AC.

I have personally had pretty good experience with Active Captain under the old management but haven't posted any reviews since Garmin took over, guess I will have to wait and see. 

One thing I am failing to understand, is how is information collected from AC any different from information collected from YouTube or even this site here. It seems to me folks post misleading or inaccurate information on YouTube and Sailing forums all the time, but as long as it isn't malicious or negligent in nature it seems like folks get away with it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but it seems as though there might be some kind of bad blood or something between 1 or 2 posters and AC.


You bet. Smack got in a match of wits with AC's owner. He says here that he closed his AC account, but I thought I recalled that AC kicked him out. Maybe he asked to be kicked out, after his account was frozen, or similar. Smacks online persona was to be in your face. Much more than now. He then opened a thread to declare Waterway Guide a superior product, when they're apples and oranges. It was clearly a vendetta and I'm pretty sure that thread led to one of his 3 bannings from this site. If AC is ever mentioned, he shows up (just like above) with a massive dumping. Personal? Seems he's formed his own posse.

Mike, who I see quoted above, works for Waterway guide as a contributor.



> I have personally had pretty good experience with Active Captain under the old management but haven't posted any reviews since Garmin took over, guess I will have to wait and see.


Same here. However, some don't seem to have the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. It's a new language. It's exactly like a stranger telling you there is a new sandbar outside the marina. It raises your antenna, you may do more research or you may exercise more caution. You don't assume the stranger was precisely accurate. It's common sense. However, this crowd sourced info arrives much quicker than a vetted encyclopedia and gives you a leg up.



> One thing I am failing to understand, is how is information collected from AC any different from information collected from YouTube or even this site here. It seems to me folks post misleading or inaccurate information on YouTube and Sailing forums all the time, but as long as it isn't malicious or negligent in nature it seems like folks get away with it.


That's right. You can't be sued for sharing your opinion, or for mistakenly posting the wrong information. There is no expectation of commercially reasonable accuracy, from a bloke you don't know or a website that is telling you they are not warranting the data.

It's pretty simple.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> Mike, who I see quoted above, works for Waterway guide as a contributor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I've heard numerous comments, both here and on Facebook, from people who say they have not contributed any reviews since Garmin took over. There's a continued (and perhaps unfair) cynicism that causes people not to want to expend effort for what's now perceived as a profit-making venture for Garmin. Active Captain seems to have lost its "cowboy" image in the eyes of many users. That may be the biggest existential threat for Active Captain.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> Minnewaska said:
> 
> 
> > Mike, who I see quoted above, works for Waterway guide as a contributor.
> ...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> It combines both crowdsourced data, along with material that has been provided and vetted by actual PAID editors; both in the office, and most importantly, on the water. I personally think it's a superior model, but I may be biased . One thing is certain, you know who to blame if something is wrong .


Mike - as you know I agree with you. But the main reason I agree is very fundamental to this discussion.

The bottom line is this: *I don't think info overlays like this are good for charts - at least at the helm*.

I think this kind of information makes FAR more sense in the trip planning side of things - not the live navigation side of things. In fact, there is a lot of evidence out there that these overlays on charts while underway cause a lot of problems...despite the wink and nod understanding that "you don't rely on this stuff for navigation" and "you don't trust this stuff over the charts". The bottom line is that people are doing both. And it's dangerous on many levels as we've discussed.

This at-the-helm use-case is what is most concerning from a liability standpoint.

Waterway Guide has become an extremely powerful trip-planning tool. And it just gets better and better as time goes on. And I did use their iNavX chart overlay on our trip - even underway for things like bridge info, anchorages, etc. - as well as contact info for a marina once I got there, etc. So I think it's definitely useful in limited ways. And I have no doubt that's the case for AC as well.

BUT - when you get into the "Local Knowledge" and "Hazard" aspect of these apps, this is where the real danger lies. AC's policy of encouraging more and more markers/data from users fed into exactly the wrong aspect of crowdsourcing - quantity over quality. And these "Local Knowledge" and "Hazard" markers - as well as anchorages - seemed to be the ones proliferating the most...but, unfortunately, also relied on the most by boaters as valid navigational advice.

So, I'm actually not sure integrating with at-the-helm chartplotters for this stuff is a great idea at all. At the very least, these integrations should be re-thought to make them more manageable and safe in that use-case.

If Garmin is furthering this quantity-over-quality approach that AC has been about at the helm - then they are going down the wrong road. My hunch, however, is that they are not. AC needed the quantity of data and members to be an attractive acquisition. And Jeff did that very well. But they've got a hell of a lot of clean-up to do in that data and the way it's presented and used if they want to make it viable and trustworthy. In this respect, I think they'd actually have to model the Waterway Guide way of doing things. Which is ironic.

This is the opening I think Waterway Guide has. They are the best digital trip planning tool I've ever seen. If they maintain that focus on quality and look at smart ways to bring that experience to the peripheral devices people have on the boat (not at the helm), the future is wide open. Let GarminAC have the helm and deal with that liability. I'm fairly confident there will be problems ahead for them unless they re-think some of this stuff.

Of course, with Garmin's acquisition of Navionics as well - we also get into the discussion of "Indentured Cruising" as I covered in my video. All of this capability is now under a single umbrella. It will be interesting to see where Garmin takes all this...for good or ill. I think this is actually the real issue behind the curtain.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Great offer Mike, I might bug you with a PM some time in the future for more info. 

I decided to go play with the guide thing. It looks nice, its a bit like a traditional cruising guide (I have always used the Ports Guides in the past). It has a little bit of crowd sourced information, but nothing like Active Captain.

I did a little experiment, I went to a local piece of canal nearby to me that I am very familiar with.

I posted the pics below. The first pic is Waterway Guide map. It lists the two local marinas and the bridge. Not bad, for folks who are motoring between marinas.

The second pic is a screen shot from Active Captain zoomed in to the same degree. Active Captain displays, the two marinas and the bridge as well. However, it also shows the 4 boat ramps, each with free dinghy docks for cruisers and the anchorage. This is a sweet anchorage too. It has 2 free dinghy docks, washrooms, picnic tables, charcoal barbecues and a Chinese restaurant with take out.

Waterway guide looks nice, but there is no way I would trade in all the information on Active Captain for it. Details like that anchorage are just to useful for me to willfully ignore. For me if I were to start using Waterway Guide it would be in addition to Active Captain, not in lieu of Active Captain.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Arc - don't those ramp markers, etc. come from Navionics (which Garmin also bought)?

I think some of this new information is from the Community Edits data from Navionics. The reason I say that is that is you can see the same ramp markers in WG using the Navionics chart underlay shown here...










I agree that Garmin's combination of the AC and Navionics CE data into one package is pretty powerful. But to say WG _doesn't_ have this information is not quite right. And, again, WG is still in its infancy compared to AC. So it will take some time. And on the flip-side, in terms of planning, there are LOTS of tools in WG that AC never had.

Just trying to keep the playing field level as much as possible if we are going to compare.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> Great offer Mike, I might bug you with a PM some time in the future for more info.
> 
> I decided to go play with the guide thing. It looks nice, its a bit like a traditional cruising guide (I have always used the Ports Guides in the past). It has a little bit of crowd sourced information, but nothing like Active Captain.
> 
> ...


Happy to tell you what I know about working with WWG &#8230; drop me a PM anytime.

I'm not trying to defend WWG, or put down AC (or any combination therein). There's no doubt some areas are covered better, and some worse, in both cases. WWG is the new kid on the online block compared to AC, and it does focus on cruising-level vessels, so you likely won't see as much small-boat stuff like launch ramps. Dingy docks are usually referenced as part of marinas or anchorages, not a seperate item. But feel free to add data to WWG. There's easy "suggesting" links or ways to send Alerts.

The other thing to keep in mind is that information in WWG is actually verified before it is posted. If something can't be verified it may not make the cut. This is the traditional strength of vetted/curated information. It is also its weakness.

Like I say, I use both. Indeed, I use ALL info I can get my hands on. I try and cross-reference information from my various sources. When they start to coincide, that's when I start to feel confident about the data.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Red Head said:


> - Navionics Community data is not part of ActiveCaptain at all. The screenshot above is all ActiveCaptain data as it has existed for years.


This is one thing that has been of real interest to me over the years of looking into this stuff - that is the origin of all this data...and then its actual relevance.

How does the Navionics chart have an embedded icon for those boat ramps - right underneath the AC markers for those same boat ramps? Did Navionics grab those AC markers and embed them in their charts? Did Navionics CE users coincidentally put in all the same markers as AC users? Did AC users just put markers on top of what was already on the Navionics charts? If so, is that helpful? It's a strange thing if you think about it. Very chicken and egg.

It goes back to that interview you did a couple of years ago with Sail Loot. It was always a question to me as to where one would get the data in the very beginning to start an app like this. And that interview answered that nagging question for me when you said...



> "I&#8230;put Skipper Bob on the internet."





> "And it was Skipper Bob on the internet. We had no intention of making ActiveCaptain."





> "We&#8230;moved what was supposed to be Skipper Bob on to activecaptain.com."


Skipper Bob. Of course. That makes perfect sense. Those are great guides and always have been. They "marked" and described a ton of this stuff many years ago...just in print.

So all of this is really just a continuum in my view. It just boils down to what app is doing what - and how well it does it. For example, at this point why wouldn't Navionics CE data be part of AC data? They both do the same things and are owned by the same people. Separating out whose data is whose at this point doesn't really matter. It's all Garmin's.

The bottom line is that, apart from anchorages, hazards, and "Local Knowledge" - most all these markers are marking the same things really - things either covered by other guides or apps and/or the charts themselves. So it's more about the value of the information than who gets to claim the markers - or numbers of markers.

And I agree with Mike that WG is definitely more geared toward larger boats which affects the kind of data that's in it. I actually think that's a plus. It saves a lot of time. It just depends on the audience and business model.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Here we go again .Smacky counterpointing everything Jeff says. And he says he’s learned?

Daddy you made your point let it go and let the rest of us learn and understand the changes and advantages from the sale of AC from the person who created it. Don’t over run this thread with your confrontational baiting posts disguised as questions Dont ruin this thread for the rest of us. 

I use AC and Waterwatpy guide both. They give me useful information which I can then verify or use when we are traveling.

One doesn’t have to be better than the other As Mike said he uses both. There is definitely space for both of them in our bags. 

Jeff Thank you for developing and inventing AC . Politics aside. 

Mike , thanks for contributing to Waterway Guide

Both of you show the willingness to help and advance fellow sailors.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Red Head said:


> You're right. I won't respond to Steve. His argument style is to pull snippets of information and spin it in a way to prove some pre-decided point. He then uses a barrage of postings to bully any legitimate discussion.
> 
> I'm sorry but I won't play that game. I'm happy to answer questions and take part in a HEALTHY discussion. I have no issue with being challenged on any of the decisions I've made over the decade+ with ActiveCaptain. Some decisions were good ones. Some were failures. No matter how anyone tries to paint them, they were all done with integrity and honesty. In cases where guidebook authors brought DMCA claims to us, we addressed every one of them. Every one of our partner relationships was exceptional. It gave me a unique and interesting view given my relationships with Furuno, C-Map, MaxSea, Garmin, and many others.
> 
> Internet bullying has no place in anything healthy. The reason Steve does the things he consistently does is because you all allow it. Ignore the troll and it goes away.


This post is among Exhibit A for why this forum should allow you to press the Like button a thousand times.

None of us are saints and most of us have taken the bait, from time to time. He simply doesn't understand how provocative he is and why. If he does, it would be psychopathic. He's not always wrong, but when he is, he's blind. I fear there will be a 2,000 word, cut and paste, reply that by it's volume alone is provocative. I hope the mods keep him in check.

Thank you for ignoring him and not fueling the fire, so the rest of us can learn something from you and each other.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Seems there’s a general principle across multiple companies where free data supplied by users is monetized. This leads to the potential for abuse by the company and would not seem to be a fair exchange in some instances as some one is making money off of your labor in entering data for which you aren’t being paid. Some feel your ability to use the app is enough payment. Some feel not. Unlike Facebook where this exchange is clearly abusive and the business model ultimately immoral given their history in the marine field judgment should be more circumspect be it active captain or downloading depths to navionics or RM. 
I would share I currently have no Facebook account. I do not crowd source my data on to any platform. I believe it is premature to do so until we follow the lead of the EU and at least have a reasonable legal framework to do so which protects the supplier of monetize data and is an equitable exchange. 
Smack is just being difficult due to his personal eexperience in my view. In the current environment companies doing this are acting within the law and should be held harmless. It’s your choice if you want to join in.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

outbound said:


> Seems there's a general principle across multiple companies where free data supplied by users is monetized. This leads to the potential for abuse by the company and would not seem to be a fair exchange in some instances as some one is making money off of your labor in entering data for which you aren't being paid. Some feel your ability to use the app is enough payment. Some feel not. Unlike Facebook where this exchange is clearly abusive and the business model ultimately immoral given their history in the marine field judgment should be more circumspect be it active captain or downloading depths to navionics or RM.


THIS is the interesting discussion that our societies have yet to have. I think in Europe the discussion is further along than here in the Americas (Canada/USA). As Jeff has pointed out (and is clear in the AC Terms of Use), the law in the USA clearly places most liability risk onto the contributor, while protecting the company involved. This is not the case in most other countries, which is why (I presume) most of these services are based in the USA.

As I and everyone else has said, I think this risk is very low. But clearly it's not zero, otherwise this law would not exist. It's there to foster innovation, which is a good thing. But users should enter into these arrangements with eyes wide open - read the @$*! Terms of Use!

BTW, the same offloading of risk is happening, not just in the digital world, but in the physical as well. Uber, Airbnb, and their ilk all offload some or all of the risk and cost of capital ownership, while reaping the rewards. It's an interesting development that opens great potential for many, but also should be fully understood by those of us who participate.


----------



## mrWinter (May 2, 2018)

I don't understand the main complaint at the beginning of this thread at all. Of course the poster should be liable for the content they post. And of course the owner of the site shouldn't. Or at least, that certainly seems like the best system to me. If you commit slander or libel, you are responsible for that, Garmin isn't, you said it. If you provide misinformation that is legally actionable then of course you are responsible for that (what is legally actionable is I assume a grey area, and if people were so inclined to pursue it would be decided by courts). Basically, if you say something criminal, you are responsible for it, just because you did so on the internet, on a website hosted by someone else rather than on your own website you run doesn't make a difference. If I post a flyer with a threat to murder someone, or some slander, or some libel, on a university posterboard wall, am I responsible for that, or is the campus, or perhaps the manufacturer of the posterboard? Ridiculous, of course I am. The idea that Garmin is getting all the profit from the information and none of the liability isn't an accurate portrayal. What they are getting profit from is standing up the place to share all this information. The information existed before, and was shared between individuals at marinas and bars and backyards, or not shared at all. Active Captain, now Garmin, is profiting off the service of creating a place for anyone to share and for anyone to view what is shared. The distribution of ownership and liability seems just right to me.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Interesting first post mrWinter …

As I say, the USA is one of a few countries which extends this kind of blanket protection to online entities like Active Captain, Facebook, and others. Most other countries do not, or do it in more limited ways. So it’s hardly as obvious or as clear cut as you suggest.

My recollection of this debate early on in the Internet world was whether services like ISPs, then compuserve, AOL and now FB or AC or indeed SN (although SN is Canadian) should be considered ‘common carriers’ like the phone system, or whether they should be treated like publishers. Publishers ARE liable for the words they print or broadcast. Even if someone else says them, they can still be found to be legally liable. Whereas the telephone companies are never liable, even if criminal activity takes place on their networks.

(BTW, the person who spoke/wrote the words is always potentially liable as well.)

The debate the USA is finally having around the whole FB fiasco is whether services like FB (and presumably AC) are actually more like publishers than telephone companies. Do they bear some responsibility for the words they present, or are they just wires and services innocently transmitting whatever people want to send. Other countries have come to different, or more nuanced, perspectives. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, changes in the USA.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The proposition that a non-commercial poster of nav information to a crowd sourced site has any actual liability to assume, even thought the TOU says they do and evev if the underlying condition has changed over time, has not been backed up. In fact, appropriate evidence has been posted to the contrary. 

I am no more concerned about posting information to AC than I am over telling someone at the bar that I heard of an obstruction. I would rather hear it and pass it along and let the Darwinian theory sort out who is intelligent enough to use it within it's bounds. The courts will not be bothered by it, unless a post is done with malicious intent.

If the laws change, that may change this conclusion, but they will be prevented from making past acts culpable.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I would think, before litigation could occur, there would have to be some kind of duty of care established between the guy who wrote the review and the guy who ran his boat aground after reading the review some months or years later.

People try to blame their mistakes and problems on other people all the time, it doesnt mean they get away with it. It is well established that a skipper is responsible for the safe navigation of their own boat,


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Probably worth dragging up this old bit of info from previous discussions (chided arguments?) of the issue of crowd sourcing. 

Our "official" NOAA charts are loaded with incorrect data. First, they all notate the last date of survey, which can be 100 years old in many cases. Second, take a peek at the length of any Notice to Mariners for adjustments. How many take the time to make those updates? There are hundreds of them.

Information is just that, no more. Information does not translate to a law of nature. Lord knows, just look at how opposing political news describes the same exact thing very differently. You have to have enough grey matter to be able to use it properly.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

This thread reminds me of a charting incident of several years ago when I went to Vieques on a bareboat charter. Based on the Seaworthy Virgin Islands guide and my Garmin handheld plotter, it looked like Bahia Salina del Sur was an anchorage. However, when we entered, we were greeted with a large buoy that said (in 2 languages) that there was no anchoring due to the potential for unexplored ordinance. 

It was later in the afternoon and we were not expecting to continue on to Culebra, but that’s what we did.

We subsequently talked to Mr. Pavlidis about his guide and also talked to someone at Garmin about the discrepancy in indicating anchorages that the Navy discouraged. Both were a little cavalier in their responses. Maybe because no one had been blown up?

It appears that the Navy may have since cleared this beautiful harbor for anchoring and removed the buoy, but at the time I chose to heed the Navy warning buoy and ignore the cruising guide and Garmin anchor symbols.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

fallard said:


> This thread reminds me of a charting incident of several years ago when I went to Vieques on a bareboat charter. Based on the Seaworthy Virgin Islands guide and my Garmin handheld plotter, it looked like Bahia Salina del Sur was an anchorage. However, when we entered, we were greeted with a large buoy that said (in 2 languages) that there was no anchoring due to the potential for unexplored ordinance.
> 
> It was later in the afternoon and we were not expecting to continue on to Culebra, but that's what we did.
> 
> ...


It looks like its clearly marked as one of the hazards on AC that are of so much concern for some.

https://activecaptain.com/livemap/Y.php


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Please curb the attitude, and stop picking nits. 

I don’t always agree with Jeff, but in this thread he has been very reasonable. You, not so much.

You have the right to not use AC. That may be your best option.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> I do have a simple question for any attorneys here (who probably won't answer for obvious reasons) - but it's worth a try...
> 
> In relation to the GDPR and its protections, how does the Garmin TOU language differentiate "personal data" vs. "User Submissions"?
> 
> ...


You might need to hire your own attorney to answer this question. Any attorney who offers free advice here will just get a firehose of attitude, conflicting quotes from authoritative sources like Wikipedia/YouTube, and other nit-picking grief ... unless such opinion is 100% validation of your cherished beliefs. It almost seems like you have an OCD thing going.

Like attorneys, there are marine industry insiders (like Jeff) who normally get paid for their advice. Many used to come here and offer their advice for free, but no longer do because of the nature of your participation. You scared them away, just like you're destined to do with Jeff. Why would any attorney put himself though that?

These are what I see as the "obvious reasons" that you won't get the free advice you are seeking. This is the environment that you created here.


----------



## mrWinter (May 2, 2018)

MikeOReilly said:


> Interesting first post mrWinter &#8230;


Yeah sorry for making my first post by jumping into a flame war about something that barely relates to sailing. Suspicious I see... I've been a lurker for a while, don't sail anymore because of kids, and before that was just a dumb charterer anyway so never felt like I had anything to add. But arguing about online applications (I'm a software developer who has worked on a project similar in nature to AC), now that's the kind of couch-sitting I can really relate to.

Appreciate your informed input on publisher vs carrier. I guess I'm arguing in favor of the argument that AC is a carrier, in part because the alternative is to just not exist at all. Interesting thoughts on FB in recent time though, they are definitely blurring the line, but that is in part because they do much more than simply carry the information, they slice dice and present it to people based on algorithms they design. They are making decisions on what info to show to what people, that's more than just carrying, and sounds more like publishing.



smackdaddy said:


> What if a litigious boater comes to serious trouble using the 5 year old information you put into AC as Local Knowledge? You knew the situation had changed locally - but perhaps had forgotten that you entered that marker along with the other 249 entries for the hat so many years ago.
> 
> Who is responsible for *maintaining* those markers?
> 
> The answer, of course, is *you* according to the ToU. You agreed to that responsibility.


I disagree, I don't think that the TOS says you are responsible for constantly maintaining any records you touched. (and even if it did, that doesn't mean that is legally enforceable, not every TOS or contract is legal, consider non-compete clauses employers make new employees sign saying they can't work for a competitor for a year or something after they stop working for them, as I understand it they are total BS and non-enforceable (as they should be IMO)) You said 5 years ago that that marker was in that place then, you never made any claims about its position since. It's up to the boater to know that the data may not be particularly up-to-date. And as Red Head points out AC goes out of their way to present some dislaimer that you shouldn't trust all the information you see as up-to-date and accurate at all times and that to responsibly navigate you need to consider other more authoritative sources. If you maliciously lied about some content, then maybe you'd be in trouble, though I have a real hard time imagining a situation where that would happen and someone would be prosecuted for it. Maybe something like the Waze users that were posting false reports of traffic jams on their local roads to keep google from sending massive amounts of traffic down their residential streets. I don't think I heard anyone got in legal trouble for that.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I see the agreement to avoid obnoxiously bolding comments, for emphasis, was quickly abandon to emotion. That's standard.

I'm so glad that Red Head isn't engaging in the ill informed position on user liability. It's a rank amateurs read/interpretation of the law, through the lens of a vendetta. It's troll bait. Period.

Corporate attorneys write stuff like that in every walk of life. Stop trying to bash AC with it.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> If you and Garmin really believe this - and if you helped write the TOU - then whey did you refuse to protect your members? Instead you made sure _you and Garmin_ were protected, then threw your members squarely under the bus. There's really no question about that in terms of the language in that TOU.
> 
> The only hope these members have - as you've seen written above several times now - is the _doubt_ that litigation could ever really happen. Surely not - because it hasn't happened yet. So, they are willing to take that gamble with their own resources - for you - in the face of this TOU. That's impressive.
> 
> ...


What's offensive about these statements is you saying those who beleive in The other point of view are basically stupid . You are the one who has the intelligence and the rest of us are so stupid we have been DUPED by Jeff.

Wake up Smacky . I would venture to say many who disagree with you are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. It's OFFENSIVE of you to state what you do

You have done what myself and others have warned you to please not do. You can couch you statements and questions in whatever you want , thiese posting are a personal animus toward another Sailnet poster.

It shows through your attitude in all of these gottcha posts challenges of Jeff.

It shows you have not learned. Your call posters on here a "posse". Now you treat another member with an aggressively attitude displaying your personal feelings.

This conduct will turn off other Sailnet members from posting on threads you post in for fear of being public ally bullied by your aggressive nature. It will turn off new Sailnet members who join to be part of a " brotherhood" of sailors and wander into a thread you are posting in and see the long diatribes, boldened letters ( disrespectful in Internet ), at agressive bullying posts to another member. It will scare awaynew members.

You have taken a normal dis ussion many of us have interest in "Garman and Active Captain" and turned it into a personal attack on the founder of AC.

You need to go. Leave us true sailors alone. Start your own virtual sailing internet site and fight club.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I’m sure now you post how you’re are a victim, that’s your pattern. Reread all your posts in this thread. They are aggressive
You are not the victim. You are the bully . I may get in trouble myself for speaking out, but enough is enough.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

Arcb said:


> It looks like its clearly marked as one of the hazards on AC that are of so much concern for some.
> 
> https://activecaptain.com/livemap/Y.php


Gee, I wonder who submitted the warning about unexploded ordinance? If you look at the comments on AC, you will see that some were clueless about the hazard, even after seeing the buoy and thinking it only referred to the immediate area of the buoy. You think the Navy planted the buoy anchor on top of an unexploded bomb? The signs all along the beach might have provided a clue about the extent of the hazardous area.

Note that the entire east end of the island was a bombing range and still hasn't been totally cleared.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Here's Waterway Guides Disclaimer.

First the abbreviated one from the maps page:



> Please note: We are not a charting company. Charts provided in the Waterway Explorer are to be used for planning purposes only and should not be relied upon for navigation. Please refer to the full disclaimer on the home page for more information.


So I went to look at the "full disclaimer". Why are there two? On the home page, which is found as a very small link at the bottom, you find this..... https://www.waterwayguide.com/disclaimer

Here are some obvious parts that make the same point as Garmin/AC, albeit with an obviously less expensive corporate attorney.  I parsed out the blah, blah, to get to the point. As I and others have said repeatedly, this point is just common corporate protection and the user isn't directly liable for their content anyway, as has been established above.



> ....Neither the authors nor the publisher can be held responsible for use or interpretation of any part of this web site, in any form, paper, electronic, or in forms yet to be devised.....





> This interactive computer service provider *[which is defined as Waterway Guide]*, and all owner(s) and authorized agents, is/are immune from any legal liability..........
> 
> .........furthermore, that user,.........hereby agrees to defend and indemnify the interactive computer service provider............from any and all claims, civil actions, demands, and damages arising out of or related to any postings by or attributable to this user.......


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> I would think, before litigation could occur, there would have to be some kind of duty of care established between the guy who wrote the review and the guy who ran his boat aground after reading the review some months or years later.


This is really getting into the weeds of legal liability. I don't know how the law treats general liability claims in both criminal and civil cases. I know something about defamation law. In Canada, and I believe the USA, defamation requires evidence of actual, measurable harm on the part of the plaintiff. And the defendant is in the position of having to _prove the falseness_ of the case, which is opposite of most legal claims where the plaintiff must prove their case. I don't know if general liability works this way, but libel IS one of the types of cases that have come forward out of crowd sourced posts.

The other factor to consider is that the American law (as cited by Jeff) AND the Garmin-AC Terms of Use are extremely explicit in transferring all liability risk to the poster. In my non-legal opinion, the contract is onerous and rather nasty in its wording. But as Jeff RIGHTLY points out, the basic law already does this. The AC ToU is mostly irrelevant (except the stuff around intellectual property). They could say nothing, and the law still seems to say Garmin-AC is held blameless. With all liability risk carried by the poster.

This cuts to the question of whether AC is a publisher, or a common carrier. The USA clearly comes down on the common carrier side. Most other countries have more nuanced perspectives.



Arcb said:


> People try to blame their mistakes and problems on other people all the time, it doesnt mean they get away with it. It is well established that a skipper is responsible for the safe navigation of their own boat,


True &#8230; but the law is a funny beast. In too many cases the law is only superficially connected to justice.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Don't forget the possibility that any liability might be covered by admiralty law, which adds a whole new level of complication and can dramatically affect the amount of liability.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

More chiding of Jeff. Anyone else getting tired of the school ground bullying stuff? Harping, over and over, on comments made years ago? Why are the mods allowing this? 

It's a real demonstration of the inability to understand crowd source to continually point out that some of it is wrong. No kidding. The ocean is blue. How much cutting and pasting is necessary to prove it? Obviously, some folks don't have the bandwidth to keep up. Crowd source is powerful, it's not omnipotent. Get a grip.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

This thread should be shut down, it is nothing but a string of angry attacks on a business and its patrons.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Arcb said:


> This thread should be shut down, it is nothing but a string of angry attacks on a business and its patrons.


Only once person doing that. Nothing wrong with the thread discussion.

The person ruining the thread ( Smackdaddy) with the attacks on a Sailnet member (Jeff - the previous owner and developer of Active Captain ) . Smackdaddy needs to be shut down. You don't shutdown a thread because of the actions of an individual.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

There is some editing afoot. I see that all Jeff's posts have been deleted, including his account, as best I can tell. Not sure I exactly recall his screen name. Several of Smack's posts are gone too. 

If the mods don't eliminate the offender, once and for all, I will lose all respect. How many times have his posts been edited by the mods or deleted, since his return from 3 bannings? I know of several. How many times was Jeff banned? Seems he has two free ones coming, just like the rest of us have 3 get out of jail free cards. Right?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> There is some editing afoot. I see that all Jeff's posts have been deleted, including his account, as best I can tell. Not sure I exactly recall his screen name. Several of Smack's posts are gone too.
> 
> If the mods don't eliminate the offender, once and for all, I will lose all respect. How many times have his posts been edited by the mods or deleted, since his return from 3 bannings? I know of several. How many times was Jeff banned? Seems he has two free ones coming, just like the rest of us have 3 get out of jail free cards. Right?


Totally agree. I have reported Smack for his harassing behavior as well as constant editing of his post sometimes hours after they have been posted. When he was banned before it alleviate don't a lot of the tension he caused. The mods need to stop this type of posting


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

It's simply ridiculous to ban Jeff or edit any of his posts on this thread. He turned the other cheek and kept contributing positively. Hopefully they've just been pulled temporarily for review. If they've been deleted permanently, then Sailnet mods have managed to scare away another knowledgeable industry insider by causing him to have wasted his time.

And if it was Jeff that deleted his posts and chose to leave, just more proof of how this place has become toxic.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Thus is crazy.


Jeff from Active Captain has an inability to leg go the bone in Internet fights.

Nor does Smack.

Both have been banned from everywhere. 
Smack just got back into this group because he promised to tone it down. 

SHUT UP SMACK! Just grow up! 

Stop the fight! You will die of a heart attack because of your immature crap! 

Settle down and enjoy the Forum - THE ONLY FORUM THAT NOW ALLOWS YOU!
Enjoy the forum and make friends NOT enemies! 


You FRIEND, 

Mark


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Jeff from Active Captain has an inability to leg go the bone in Internet fights...


I've heard about that behavior before, but this time around he was being very reasonable and ignoring the taunts. His contribution was valuable, but unfortunately it may have been short-lived due to no apparent fault of his own. This time the blame falls on one person IMO.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> I've heard about that behavior before, but this time around he was being very reasonable and ignoring the taunts. His contribution was valuable, but unfortunately it may have been short-lived due to no apparent fault of his own.


I agree with you.

Jeff is still working with Active Captain with Garmin. 
It's crazy to ditch the founder and current boss of Active Captain.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Thus is crazy.
> 
> Jeff from Active Captain has an inability to leg go the bone in Internet fights.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mark. I'll send you a PM.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

This is pathetic. The mods are failing.


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

I found a lot of the information informative as I am an owner of many of Garmin’s products and apps.. Talked to a Garmin rep. the other day and he relates there is a major update coming in June tying in Active Captain with their new mapping products.. There was a recent bundle release prepping this change..so check your Garmin product support for updates.

FYI.. the OP of this thread has the ability to delete it if he so chooses other than the moderators...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

aa3jy said:


> FYI.. the OP of this thread has the ability to delete it if he so chooses other than the moderators...


I think the OP could delete is post, but I do not think that deletes the thread.

Why would he want to anyway. There has been some good discussion and information, with one glaring exception of a vendetta.

I'm struggling to assume the mods are deliberating over this and it's not over. The edits were not even complete, as Smack still has a post with a quote from Red Head, whose account doesn't even exist at the moment.

There is a clear common denominator to this nonsense.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I think the OP could delete is post, but I do not think that deletes the thread.
> 
> Why would he want to anyway. There has been some good discussion and information, with one glaring exception of a vendetta.
> 
> ...


I agree . There was a lot of good exchange of info in the thread.

This was the first time in my time on Sailnet I have as the mods to look at someone's behavior. 
per to 
I know o can be prickly and sarcastic at times as have others here, but not rising to this level. This is not the first tome for Smackdaddy nor is it isolated to this thread.

It serves as a damper to discussion. Turns people away.

I too am losing my faith in the mods to step in and control this. Are they all asleep?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I doubt if I delete the first post it will delete the thread.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

The suggestion to close the thread was mine. I dont think its a fundamentally flawed thread, and I agree ithas some good points.

My point was that I thought something should be done about some of the comments that were happening, and it appears that something has been done. There is no reason to close the thread now IMO.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I am concerned about what appears to be a dramatically reduced hit rate (and post rate) on this site. When I click the "new posts" link, it used to be 3-5 pages of thread links with new posts just from the past day. Now it's only one page of posts from the past day. I know that this list excludes threads I've read, but I'm only following four of five threads right now because there's so little of interest any more.

As recently as six months ago, we'd have truly fascinating discussions, with experts coming on here giving really good advice. This would drive discussion and hit rate, which would lead to more posts. Participation was so vigorous, it was hard to keep up. Now we have those experts avoiding this place because their contributions are met with berating challenges that never let up. It's a relentless firehose of in-your-face attitude. New posts by true experts, which I believe really drove the vitality of Sailnet, are no longer appearing.

I don't know where to go for free website analytics - I tried searching for some and get hundreds of hits, but most want you to sign up for an account before they show you anything. I did get some quick data off of Amazon's Alexa site, which shows traffic rankings instead of direct hit counts. It's not a pretty picture, with a precipitous drop in ranking for Sailnet since October last year. New users (key for keeping this place alive) might be getting scared off by the toxic OCD posts of one person. They also might be not finding much of interest because we've lost some of the most expert industry insiders. Frankly, it might also be because new phone-based users are scared off by malware ads that the admins were so incompetent about correcting. But regardless it's not a pretty picture.










https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/sailnet.com

I have written to the mods with my concerns. I've heard nothing back but silence.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> I am concerned about what appears to be a dramatically reduced hit rate (and post rate) on this site. When I click the "new posts" link, it used to be 3-5 pages of thread links with new posts just from the past day. Now it's only one page of posts from the past day. I know that this list excludes threads I've read, but I'm only following four of five threads right now because there's so little of interest any more.
> 
> As recently as six months ago, we'd have truly fascinating discussions, with experts coming on here giving really good advice. This would drive discussion and hit rate, which would lead to more posts. Participation was so vigorous, it was hard to keep up. Now we have those experts avoiding this place because their contributions are met with berating challenges that never let up. It's a relentless firehose of in-your-face attitude. New posts by true experts, which I believe really drove the vitality of Sailnet, are no longer appearing.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, doesn't this curve nicely fit with Smack's banishment and then return? 

If I ever stop coming here it won't be b/c of the sometimes annoying posters. They are easy to ignore &#8230; or not. We all have that choice. So too with annoying threads. I've never understood this call to "close the thread!" If you don't like it, don't read it. No one is forced to read, let alone respond, to anything on a forum.

Annoying people or threads won't stop me from coming here. But I will stop coming if the adware and malware issues get out of control. I've seen surges of this here every once in a while, but right now it's acceptable to me.

BTW, I'm not in favour of tighter moderation here on SN. One thing that keeps me coming back here is the gentle mod-touch which I appreciate. There's this other cruising forum (which shall remain nameless ) which I also frequent. I like it as well, but find the moderation a bit too heavy over there at times.

I think the mods here (and the mod philosophy) to be just about right for my taste. Sure, there are mistakes, but these folks are volunteers (something I think should change). In general I think they do a great job.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. In my opinion, not every participant is equal. I especially enjoy hearing from, and express deference to, people who are industry experts. The current approach has caused us to lose those people, and I think Sailnet is weaker because of that.

I have never suggested closing this thread. Your insinuation is totally off the mark with respect to my participation.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Sailnet doesnt use the Ignore Thread ability of the forum software. I used to like that on Cruisersforum. you could just make a thread disappear.

I think theres a lot less moderators on SN at the moment. Wheres that bloody Dragon? I think they need more. New blood. New energy. Slot anyone with a few thousand posts into a spot (or anyone with a brain)

The reason I dont use Cruisers forum at all anymore is the wombat moderators. Particularly siding with trolls against people who actually have boats.

Yes, I have managed to piss off a new member or two here on sailnet. Ooops. :devil

This graph shows a serious problem @admin1 should have a very careful look and perhaps have a listen.









On some of the experts that were on this forum that dont seem to pop in much at all.... they really are good to have. I don't ready stuff about boat building but its nice to know theres discussions about it.
As for people like Mainesail not appearing much anymore... well... he's an absolute wealth of good information.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Since the discussion is focused on me right now, let me ask an honest question...what do you guys have the most problem with regarding my posts? Obviously the button is getting hit quite frequently - so I'm asking.

Many times I see complaints that seem to me to be mostly about style of writing (bold fonts or whatever). But I don't think that's the primary issue here. We all have our own styles.

So, tell me what the problems are as you see them. I'm not go to respond to any of it to avoid further tension. But I think it will probably be enlightening.

I'm most interested in feedback from those who read along but don't often post - perhaps largely due to the tension in the ongoing thread. What advice do you have for me? I'm listening.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> So, tell me what the problems are as you see them. I'm not go to respond to any of it to avoid further tension. But I think it will probably be enlightening.
> 
> I'm listening.


You are like a dog with a bone. You won't let go.

Do your post. Write intelligently. Post it. Then move on to another thread.

Each thread doesn't need you posting 66 times the same opinion.

You try to win by the volume of posts.

We all make the same mistake... I know I often do. So I know of the error and I know it's difficult to alter. Because we fail to realise we will never change the opinion of the other person.

You will never change the opinion of the other person.

Nor will I.

So state your point and give the other person respect that he will not change because he thinks he is right. Just as right as you.

And the next time you divert a post to crap on about catamarans I will butt-shove my computer right up you.

Seriously :laugh

Hey, this is a weekend. We're meant to be sailing! :cut_out_animated_em


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> Everyone is entitled to his opinion. In my opinion, not every participant is equal. I especially enjoy hearing from, and express deference to, people who are industry experts. The current approach has caused us to lose those people, and I think Sailnet is weaker because of that.
> 
> I have never suggested closing this thread. Your insinuation is totally off the mark with respect to my participation.


Sorry TF, I didn't mean to imply or accuse you of that. I was speaking in general, but I shouldn't have used your quote like that. I apologize.



> Sailnet doesnt use the Ignore Thread ability of the forum software. I used to like that on Cruisersforum. you could just make a thread disappear.


Yes, I like that feature as well, and do use it on CF. But it's simply a choice to ignore, or not ignore, a thread I have no interest in. If it bugs me, or I have no interest in it, or I have nothing useful to say, I move on. No biggie.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

you guys are sure playing the pot calling the kettle black

Jeff, why can't AC acturally delete the posts that say something like "...... delete when corrected". I get tired of wasting my time reading about the buoy missing etc. that someone posted 7 years ago and all the updates saying the buoy is on station. That's just an example, but there's lots of these misleading "hazards".


----------



## MacBlaze (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> You are like a dog with a bone. You won't let go.
> 
> Do your post. Write intelligently. Post it. Then move on to another thread.
> 
> ...


This.

I like Smack. Up to a point and then I stop listening.

Of course it takes two to tango, but someone has got to be the bigger man...


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> I think the OP could delete is post, but I do not think that deletes the thread.


Yes..it can be done ..OP can delete the thread..I've done done it numerous times...but continue on as I find this thread informative...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> Since the discussion is focused on me right now, let me ask an honest question...what do you guys have the most problem with regarding my posts? Obviously the button is getting hit quite frequently - so I'm asking.
> 
> Many times I see complaints that seem to me to be mostly about style of writing (bold fonts or whatever). But I don't think that's the primary issue here. We all have our own styles.
> 
> ...


Totally disingenuous post. I'm not swallowing your attempt to deflect. What.....are you going to listen to what others say....or pretend to .

1- The people who have told you they don't like the boldened fonts you dismiss out of hand as it's just a difference in styles

2- you only want to hear from new people not the people you offend regularly. Many of them don't know you history and yes Smacky your history counts. You have been banned from Sailnet before and banned from many other sailing sites. Sense a pattern.

3- you are not a person of your word ...yes that's strong but you don't mean or do what you say. You said earlier you would not bolden your font, how long did that last.

4- you attack people , will we get them back. Your last banning was due to an abuse of SV Auspicious, past president of SCAA. Now the founder and developer of Active Captain. You accuse and attack / embarrass people like myself and for that manner anyone who disagrees with you. You have cost Sailnet members others who not longer post her thus meaning we are not richer but worse off because of you

5- when you were banned it was quieter and people exercised respect, even when they disagreed . Your bullying is done by extensive massive posts, shouting at others using bold letters ( everyone knows what that is) . You

6-Your bullying was done by counter posting many of us like it was point / counter point. If you disagreed your post was a barrage of cut and paste Internet posts as well as a lengthy wordy explaination.

7- you have been banned from other sites for exactly the same thing. Do you change ....no. You don't . You accept NO responsibility for you actions. You hide behind a smokescreen accusing others of being a "posse" . Really Smacky , all of us got together to do this to you here, and in other sailing internet sites?

8- you have Never apologized to anyone unless forced to. That doesn't exist in your vocabulary.

You were given another chance here, what is it your third..fourth?. You reverted back to what you've always been in this thread , attacking Jeff even though you were asked nicely by many of us to stop. You have no decency to listen to others...a bully to the end.there is no reason to beleive you will ever change this.

Some of us truly like posting here, learning things , helping other sailors , here and even in person. 
( you drove away SV Auspicious who did that for many of us) . You are ruining that for us. I did not ask last time to have you banned, but this time I am finally fed up. No remorse, no self recognition what you are doing wrong or correcting it . You ask new members to tell you what they think, they don't know your history .

No remorse, no apology to people you offend, no changing you practice of posting.

Give us our site back. Leave like a gentleman. Go start you own site.

How about an apology


----------



## kenr74 (Oct 13, 2012)

smackdaddy said:


> So, tell me what the problems are as you see them. I'm not go to respond to any of it to avoid further tension. But I think it will probably be enlightening.
> 
> I'm most interested in feedback from those who read along but don't often post - perhaps largely due to the tension in the ongoing thread. What advice do you have for me? I'm listening.


I'll bite. I have enjoyed a lot of Smack's posts, and I think I would enjoy going for a sail with him. What really bugs me, however, and usually inspires me to avoid a thread is the attitude where someone else must be wrong, and their errors must be shoved in their face over and over again. I don't get it. To me a forum should be a place where people share their opinions, ideas, and experiences. Obviously there is going to be some back and forth, but in general, say your peace and move on like Mark said. If I want personal drama, I'll watch reality TV. I want to come to a sailing forum to hear people talk about topics related to sailing.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

He seems to turn everything into a fight club.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Do we have any mods anymore?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> Do we have any mods anymore?


I dunno. @Donna_F, what has happened to all the moderators?


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Do we have any mods anymore?


Sure, they are watching the forum implode and getting ready to clean house...again.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I am not sure where the problem lies. We have moderators whom I think are unpaid volunteers. Then there are admins - is their function strictly IT support? Then there are the owners, who have changed at least a few times over Sailnet's history. The Bender family went to my church before retiring and moving away from my town, and they bought it out of bankruptcy liquidation around the crash and owned it until a couple years ago.

It's hard to say who makes these decisions. It might not just be the mods. And it might change over time, resulting in decisions being made without knowledge of the whole history. Or maybe it is entirely the mods' decision.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> I dunno. @Donna_F, what has happened to all the moderators?


Donna doesn't come here anymore.

Last visit 1 week ago. Last post 3 weeks ago.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> How about an apology


Why don't you lead the way? You were demonstrably wrong in attacking me on another thread and I asked for an apology.

Still waiting.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

What a bunch of snowflakes being offended by a couple of bold font words in a thread. Really? Go ahead and complain about content, volume, etc, but all of this complaining about style is silly. 

I don't complain about all of the run-on sentences, mangled grammar and syntax, incomplete thoughts, bad sentence construction, and poor spelling riddling most of the posts from those complaining about another's use of style. If you are going to continually throw that rock, then make sure you aren't in a glass house.

BTW, caps are shouting - bold is emphasis.

Mark


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't care a whit about bold face and other stylistic crap. And I personally can simply ignore his rants, and I do just scroll over them when I see them going in the wrong direction. What I object to is the way his "fight club mentality" has scared away valued experts on Sailnet.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I use emphasis, all caps and bolding in some of my posts. But they aren't bullying. 

There be the difference. 

Or should I say: thar be...


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Why can’t we discus something at least about AC instead of you know who


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Don0190 said:


> Why can't we discus something at least about AC instead of you know who


Yes, let's get back to wholesome threads on why Hunter's suck and how that one guy keeps spending his money all wrong. :grin

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> Yes, let's get back to wholesome threads on why Hunter's suck and how that one guy keeps spending his money all wrong. :grin


Or why it's perfectly possible to cruise on $500/month, with a composting head, and a manual windlass :grin.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> Why don't you lead the way? You were demonstrably wrong in attacking me on another thread and I asked for an apology.
> 
> Still waiting.
> 
> Mark


Sorry Mark


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> What a bunch of snowflakes being offended by a couple of bold font words in a thread. Really? Go ahead and complain about content, volume, etc, but all of this complaining about style is silly.
> 
> I don't complain about all of the run-on sentences, mangled grammar and syntax, incomplete thoughts, bad sentence construction, and poor spelling riddling most of the posts from those complaining about another's use of style. If you are going to continually throw that rock, then make sure you aren't in a glass house.
> 
> ...


You skirt the issue .

You fail to address the person who it seems has been banned from this and other sail posting siites. He gets no rebuke from you at all . He gets a free pass from you. He can do no wrong in you eyes.

Instead you focus on others who feel slighted . This shows You choose the enable the poor behavior . Not once do you address the others who have left subsequent to the attacks and bullying by the perpetrator. Instead you focus on spelling, grammar etc.

I would rather choose to be a "snowflake" as you called me. I won't regress to you childish name calling.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> Yes, let's get back to wholesome threads on why Hunter's suck and how that one guy keeps spending his money all wrong. :grin
> 
> Mark


Yes there should be a thread about that.maybe I could learn something of importance, ..................... to ignore :yacht:


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> You skirt the issue .
> 
> You fail to address the person who it seems has been banned from this and other sail posting siites. He gets no rebuke from you at all . He gets a free pass from you. He can do no wrong in you eyes.
> 
> ...


None of this is true. I just ignore threads and posters that annoy me instead of complaining about them and crying to an authority to ban them from my sensitive presence. Or I address them directly if I feel I need to make a point. But I don't cry for mommy.

So far, the only fault I've seen in the person you allude to is that when he has a point or argument to make, he can be persistent to the point of boring. However, I find several here with that fault, including you. If you want to call this bullying, then you need to hold a mirror to yourself and others here - because it all looks the same to me.

To make the claim you do that by me not joining your gang and following your ways I am by default "enabling" anything is illogical. And very self-centered.

Mark


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Geeez, Mark. Take those Happy pills back. They're not working.


Fronk


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> Or why it's perfectly possible to cruise on $500/month, with a composting head, and a manual windlass :grin.


You also have a composting windlass - you just don't know it yet...

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> You also have a composting windlass - you just don't know it yet...


I can't quite figure out the joke Mark, but I know it's meant to be a fun jab. And that's great.

BTW, I wouldn't put things so harshly as you (I'm a polite/friendly Canadian after all ), but I agree with your general assessment. As I've said, I'm often bemused by the call to "close this thread!" If you don't want to read it, then don't. That's the beauty of forums over listserves - no one is forced to read anything or partake in any discussion. If the subject, or the person, bothers you, then just move on.

There are a lot of strong personalities on SN - many of whom have spoken up here on this thread. Sometimes all of us can be annoying jerks (and yes, I count myself amongst this group). Perhaps Smack leads this pack, but many of us contend for top spot at times. I don't call in the referee when faced with annoying posters. I engage if the discussion is interesting (or I'm annoyed, and actually care about the subject). Often I'll simply ignore a post or poster if I they aren't worth my time to respond.

Calling on the _SN-powers-that-be_ to settle squabbles is not my way. And based on my experience as both admin and moderator of a number of forums and lists over the decades, it is rarely the best way. Yes, moderators need to step in at times. But it is far better for any community to develop a culture of self-moderation. This is what human communities have always done. Online is no different. And I think this discussion illustrates this reality.

If the character and tone of some of these discussions really are chasing expert contributors away, that would be bad thing. But I've seen a some of these "experts" also dish out as well as they receive. This is a discussion forum, after all. The vast majority of threads here are very civil, and rarely contentious. It's only a few which seem to get out of hand.

I've said it before; I appreciate the lighter moderator touch that seems to happen here on SN vs some other cruising forums. It's one of the reasons that keeps me here. I think the mods do a good job. I, for one, hope they do not become more restrictive.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> I can't quite figure out the joke Mark, but I know it's meant to be a fun jab. And that's great.


I'm really failing at this humor thing. I was trying to make a joke that windlasses are one of those things that silently and steadily compost to dust just sitting there. One day they work, and the next they are a pile of compost.

Probably more to do with lack of maintenance and "out of sight out of mind", but I was reaching for the funny...

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> Sometimes all of us can be annoying jerks. Perhaps Smack leads this pack...


Woah! What have you done with the polite Canadian? Heh.

What I've seen thus far from the feedback (thanks for that) is that it's mostly about my doggedness on discussing certain topics and my insistence on proving someone wrong. My choice of font and weight is not really an issue.

So allow me to explain a couple of things from my perspective...

On my doggedness on various topics - guilty as charged. But that doggedness is most always directed *toward the topic*. I don't post in many threads at all. I never have. I only repeatedly post in ones on which I have something to contribute.

I also typically don't *just post*...at least not repeatedly. If I am posting a lot in any thread - it's because I'm *responding* to things being said by various other posters. And this is a very important distinction. This forum is a *discussion* (each of us responding to others), not a one-sided sermon...

..which leads to...

The insistence to prove people wrong.

I think this is a critical underlying issue here. If what we're all doing here is learning, then that requires digging deeply into information, researching, reading, looking at different angles, and examining thoughts and statements against that information. That's how learning happens. In this scenario, relevant facts are more important than just about anything. And the facts themselves either prove one "wrong" or "right"...unless it is a topic that is purely subjective. So in this regard, I'm not trying to "prove someone wrong", I am (rightly or wrongly) trying to keep the focus on the facts.

However, if that's NOT what we're doing here - then I think that's where I've completely missed the mark. If it is really about allowing anything to be said without regard to the factual nature of the comment, then yeah, I'm absolutely horrible at that...which leads us back to the doggedness in responding to others in these discussions...and others' doggedness in replying back... Cue vicious circle.

What it comes down to for me is this: are readers learning things from what I post? And do they find it interesting and somewhat entertaining? If they are/do, that's a good thing.

I want to make it very clear that I really don't care one whit about changing opinions of posters here. For me, it's all about the facts of the topic - and the discussion surrounding those. Period.

To that annoyingness, I definitely have the gift of acerbic wit - which is handy as hell in a debate - but which, I fully understand, drives many people absolutely crazy. It has since my first day on SN. But I try very, very hard to only turn that on when being aggressively and repeatedly "engaged" by someone. If the discussion remains respectful, I work very hard to remain respectful. If it doesn't - I fully admit I probably go a bit too ham. But, I do not get truly personal with anyone (the "personal attack" thing). I don't think that kind of thing is right - or, more importantly, manly.

So, hopefully that gives a couple of you some insight on how I think and post. I want to make it clear that I do care very much about how the *larger SN membership* feels about my posting. There is a very small vocal group of people whose opinions I truly don't care about. But the larger community here, I want to do right by you guys. I really do.

So, I'll keep listening. Thanks again.

PS - I've only been permanently banned from a single active sailing forum: CF. And that was due to an intentional exercise on how moderation worked over there (after several years of pretty boring membership). I think I am in very good company on that particular banning. Just wanted to make that clear.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

It all reminds me of my alcoholic uncle explaining why he wasn’t an alcoholic.


----------



## MacBlaze (Jan 18, 2016)

TakeFive said:


> It all reminds me of my alcoholic uncle explaining why he wasn't an alcoholic.


LET

IT

GO.

Sheesh.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Ha ha. "Facts", "proving people wrong" LOL.

It's good for a laugh if you don't take it too seriously.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Here's something we should all listen to:


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Sometimes I wish my attention span would allow me to read a long rant about some other rant. But hey, if it's too long for a goldfish to read why should I.

Maybe break the 8 paragraph rant into 4 short 2 paragraph ones and I might be able to make it because I could rest between them.

Meanwhile I need to go drink some. It had been 6 months since I was at a dock and today makes it 2 days in a row (different places) and I need to drink the budget away more to make-up for it.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

MacBlaze said:


> LET
> 
> IT
> 
> ...


I really like your post. In four words you expressed your opinion very effectively. It took me about a dozen words. On the other hand, we have:


smackdaddy said:


> Woah! What have you done with the polite Canadian? Heh.
> 
> What I've seen thus far from the feedback (thanks for that) is that it's mostly about my doggedness on discussing certain topics and my insistence on proving someone wrong. My choice of font and weight is not really an issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Moderation is absent. I suspect either they haven’t come together or are diametrically opposed. Again.

The real story is all of Smack’s posts that have had to be edited or deleted by the mods, since his third banning. It’s easy to stick one’s finger in their dimple and say, I’m trying to be nice. The violations have been deleted, as should the users account. 

The reason a forum requires moderation is you can’t walk past the folks at the bar that are always in everyone’s face. Everyone shows up wherever they like. Most want to avoid those that self proclaim celebrity or the modern evolution of the conversation and defining others in “forums” as outdated sailors. Those that tell others they are wrong, when it’s simoly opinions that vary. Those people are obnoxious. We have one. 

The real downside is it’s keeping many true experts from contributing.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> None of this is true. I just ignore threads and posters that annoy me instead of complaining about them and crying to an authority to ban them from my sensitive presence. Or I address them directly if I feel I need to make a point. But I don't cry for mommy.
> 
> So far, the only fault I've seen in the person you allude to is that when he has a point or argument to make, he can be persistent to the point of boring. However, I find several here with that fault, including you. If you want to call this bullying, then you need to hold a mirror to yourself and others here - because it all looks the same to me.
> 
> ...


Just for the record ...no one called for mommy. I would prefer to stay within the forum rules and resources. I can quite easily handle my own issues. That fact that you ridicule using those methods
Is telling.

Also for the record I am not part of any " gang" or "posse". When you characterize independent people with minds making similar judgements a gang, ...that's telling. Maybe it good you cruise from place to place.

BTW I must not be the only one with the bullying opinion . Banning from multiple sailing sites, and from here seems to indicate a certain pattern. The fact that you can't recognize that or why , speaks volumes about your judgement.

I will start a new phrase just in your honor...Trump has false news....yours is false posting. Enabling, and false posting . Quite a combo.

I probably need to follow the advice you gave , but cannot seem to follow yourself . Just ignore both you and him. I grow tired of this childish stuff.

Had a great extended weekend out sailing...meeting friends...great food and commradiere. That's what Sailing is really about. Makes no difference if we got there by Google Earth or charts we got there.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

If you folks are truly concerned about why participation is falling here just read over the past 10 pages or so. MikeO is correct, that most of you are jerks. The "real experts" that are missing I am guessing is that the people with whom the poster agrees with are no longer posting. I recently read a book written by a real American hero who repeatedly made the point that too many people are easily treed by a Chihuahua, which translates to being easily distracted from the main subject at hand. Why spend time reading or even visiting a site where the same people make the same statements, arguments and highlight the same personal grudges everyday. I do visit this site on a daily basis on the hope of learning more about boats and sailing but my interest has become more of an observation of people who theink they know everything and anyone who disagrees with them is obviously stupid......


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> ....MikeO is correct, that most of you are jerks.


Well, let's see if there really is no more moderation of this forum. If there isn't, I have a couple of barrels to unload.



> The "real experts" that are missing I am guessing is that the people with whom the poster agrees with are no longer posting.


That's imagined. First, forums are famous for repeating the same answer. Second, I know of several tradesman, lifetime experienced delivery skippers and an industry author who avoid this place, solely because they don't have the time to counter the incorrect, misleading or obnoxious barrage of attacks by "the poster".

I am dismayed that the mods are radio silent, have seemingly removed Jeff S's account, but only deleted or edited several of Smack's (a fact which one would think warranted a violation of his 3-ban probation).

I wonder how much longer, until the asylum begins to think there is no one watching anymore.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

On my part at least, now that I'm not working from home any longer, I only have my phone to use for internet access for about 12 hours a day as my work computer is behind a firewall. With lots of government contracts access is restricted. Typing volumes into a forum from my phone is not my thing.

That said, the call for more mods has been heard and is being addressed.

My dream used to be that civility would reign around SN and more members would act, well, civil towards each other. I hoped for a community that watched out for each other much like the sailors I've met seem to do out in the non-virtual world with respect, decency, all that, even if it might just be a facade. 

When the reported posts (except for reports of one particular subject) declined I thought it was more or less working and all that was needed was a spot check now and again. I guess not. 

I'll set aside time in the evening to be more present.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Don’t let babysitting interfere with your real life please. Just let them fight with each other, that’s what they want.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> If you folks are truly concerned about why participation is falling here just read over the past 10 pages or so. MikeO is correct, that most of you are jerks. The "real experts" that are missing I am guessing is that the people with whom the poster agrees with are no longer posting. I recently read a book written by a real American hero who repeatedly made the point that too many people are easily treed by a Chihuahua, which translates to being easily distracted from the main subject at hand. Why spend time reading or even visiting a site where the same people make the same statements, arguments and highlight the same personal grudges everyday. I do visit this site on a daily basis on the hope of learning more about boats and sailing but my interest has become more of an observation of people who theink they know everything and anyone who disagrees with them is obviously stupid......


What I actually said RMB is exactly this:



> There are a lot of strong personalities on SN - many of whom have spoken up here on this thread. *Sometimes all of us can be annoying jerks *(and yes, I count myself amongst this group). Perhaps Smack leads this pack, but many of us contend for top spot at times. I don't call in the referee when faced with annoying posters. I engage if the discussion is interesting (or I'm annoyed, and actually care about the subject). Often I'll simply ignore a post or poster if I they aren't worth my time to respond.


So I definitely include you in this group RMB , along with me, and probably every poster on this thread. The point is, we can all slip over the line at times. And none of us here are saints. But I think the push and pull of this exactly demonstrates how human communities have always worked. Online naturally exaggerates some of our worst tendencies, but overall my view is things are working reasonably well.

Donna, I think you're doing things just fine, and I think you and the other mods are taking just the right approach. And I, for one, certainly appreciate all you and the team does here. Those who keep calling for more policing would probably be more comfortable over at CF.

In any community there will be flareups, but that's the nature of all human interactions. And while this thread has become heated at times, I think it's the perfect example of self-policing that you are aiming for. I don't know what happened to Jeff's new account though, or what has happened with other editing, so maybe I don't see the whole picture. But I don't feel the discussion has been overly harsh or destructive to the broader SN community.


----------



## jblumhorst (Apr 14, 2002)

mikeoreilly said:


> ...
> So i definitely include you in this group rmb , along with me, and probably every poster on this thread. The point is, we can all slip over the line at times. And none of us here are saints. But i think the push and pull of this exactly demonstrates how human communities have always worked. Online naturally exaggerates some of our worst tendencies, but overall my view is things are working reasonably well.
> 
> Donna, i think you're doing things just fine, and i think you and the other mods are taking just the right approach. And i, for one, certainly appreciate all you and the team does here. Those who keep calling for more policing would probably be more comfortable over at cf.
> ...


+1


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MikeOReilly said:


> In any community there will be flareups, but that's the nature of all human interactions. And while this thread has become heated at times, I think it's the perfect example of self-policing that you are aiming for. I don't know what happened to Jeff's new account though, or what has happened with other editing, so maybe I don't see the whole picture. But I don't feel the discussion has been overly harsh or destructive to the broader SN community.


I agree with this - obviously. Remember that *RULE NUMBER 1* for SN says this...



> "We encourage strong debates within the forums...*but attack ideas and opinions and facts*...not the person posting them!"


Think about this for a moment. This is obviously a very, very, very fine line...especially right now, and especially with me due to a few wanting me gone and reporting most of my posts as personal attacks (when they are not).

*But as you can see this strong debate and "attack" of what might be posted IS allowed AND encouraged in the freakin' rules everyone is pointing to!* And it DOESN'T say that you can only do this with certain people and not with others.

The line that has been drawn for me by moderation is my "in your face" style of posting (which is not defined in the rules). And when taken in total, especially in light of what is *encouraged* above in the rules, and especially when I'm trying to respond to very aggressive posts *directed at me* by a few, it is very difficult to understand where that "in your face" line is...and how it's being respected *by all on this forum* if it is, in fact, the actual standard.

I did not "personally attack" JeffS in this thread. I absolutely "attacked" his "ideas and opinions and facts" - providing his past statements and actions, paragraphs from the ToU, etc. that countered what he was saying here. This is precisely "strong debate". Yet some people repeatedly hit the report button with my posts causing the mods to have to take action (seems like a system that could be abused a bit).

I assume JeffS is gone because his presence was against these very same SN rules people are pointing to (but excusing him from for whatever reason) - re-joining the forum under a different name after being perma-banned. From what I recall, I think this is the third or fourth time he has done it. I never overtly mentioned it or reported him because I personally don't care about stuff like that. I was perfectly willing to debate him directly...per that rule above. I thought he deserved a voice in the debate.

So, I would ask those few calling for my head on a platter to think a bit about these rules and if they really want them applied fairly - or just want my head at any cost.

I don't attack people personally on Sailnet. I never have (except for one time in 2009 where I called a person a "loser" and was given a 1-week vacation for it). I don't follow them to different threads and antagonize them. I DO engage in strong debate on topics I'm interested in. And I DO "attack" certain ideas and opinions and facts that are presented by whomever presents them with counters if the warrant it. Absolutely. But that is NOT against the rules. In fact it is apparently *encouraged*.

If this is no longer the case on SN, then the rules, which I've been trying to follow since I joined 10 years ago, should be changed and clarified. Because it certainly makes for a very arbitrary line these days...if one is actually trying to respect those rules.

If we're going to discuss this, I certainly hope we can actually discuss it *as a community*. To the mods' credit, I've been told I'm on the razor's edge right now (you guys should lay off them a bit). So let's at least talk about that edge. It's only fair.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

It's the condescending attitude that destroys a discussion of the exchange of ideas, opinions and information. This may not need a moderator to insert themselves into the discussion. We are supposed to be adults not rowdy adolescents... who feel they must prevail. Way too many of these discussions have no right or wrong... as there are many solutions to many of the sailor's problems. No one size fits all as they say.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Rubbing Jeff’s nose in his now ancient assertion that he personally verified all the content in AC, was nothing more than a personal attack. It wasn’t rooted in anything this thread was about. Perhaps he once did, but since AC has become a raging crowdsourced success, no one thought that was the case, except our one poster here that is out to get AC. Further, there was a post that asked Jeff if he was an attorney, when he explained the genesis of the TOS. That was content based or personal? Of course, all that has been deleted, so it’s easy to smile and claim innocence now.

I suspect those that think everything is just fine the way it is, missed some of what is not, because it’s been deleted. Repeatedly. 

It will happen again, if the mods don’t fix it.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

SanderO said:


> It's the condescending attitude that destroys a discussion of the exchange of ideas, opinions and information. This may not need a moderator to insert themselves into the discussion. We are supposed to be adults not rowdy adolescents... who feel they must prevail. Way too many of these discussions have no right or wrong... as there are many solutions to many of the sailor's problems. No one size fits all as they say.


SanderO sums up my feelings.

I lurk on several FaceBook forums and lo and behold, they all manage to survive, be interesting, and be fun without the snarkyness.

That said, how about we put this thread and it's sub-threads to rest?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> I agree with this - obviously. Remember that *RULE NUMBER 1* for SN says this...
> 
> Think about this for a moment. This is obviously a very, very, very fine line...especially right now, and especially with me due to a few wanting me gone and reporting most of my posts as personal attacks (when they are not).
> 
> ...


Really Smack....do you ever do anything wrong.

You think you didn't attack JeffS? 
You don't think it was personal?
You didn't go after SV Auspicious? 
You don't think that was personal either?
You haven't call me names? You haven't made sarcastic references about me personally or others personally that have nothing to do with the topic?

Why were you banned here multiple times!
Why were you banned from the other sailing forums?
Seems like a similar pattern to me.

To those who I have much respect and don't want moderators involved, I guess this site turns into the jungle. In the jungle the strongest survive. In an online thread site only the must verbal and aggressive survive. Do you really want new membership? The mods have to decide...is the forum better with or without him. It's not a democracy.

Do you really want this site to be represented by someone who when they don't like you idea, goes after you or even your idea with a barrage of multiple posts, a barrage of verbiage capitalized and boldened, a barrage of cut and paste from other people or sites.

Do you want a site wherever a poster post edits over 50% of his posts. Don't beleive his explaination he's changing things.

Do you want a site whose principal poster has been banned from here and other sites for bevioral issues toward others?

Most importantly Do you want a site valuable contributors leave because they are trashed verbally. They are professional and valuable posters like Jeff ( a proven entity who developed and created Active Captain ) or SV Auspicious ( a proven delivery captain as well as electronics expert) so they decide to go elsewhere. 
We all suffer when they leave. Smacks attack on JeffS and SV Auspicious was personal. Even if you didn't see the original threads involving them, you could see the aggressiveness .

Smack throws it in the mods faces and challenges them to do something to him. HES MADE NUMEROUS SIDE REFERENCES AND QUIPS TO THEM . He's called out Jeff H and number of times.

To DonnaF and the mods; One of the violations of TOS is when the moderators have tô spend exorbitant time on someone causing issues here. Isn't it apparent that's what's is happening. Have there been enough people inquiring where are the moderators monitoring this site. He certainly qualifies. Certainly when he was banned before your jobs which you volunteer for were easier.

Minniewaska asked a question....wasn't the terms of Smack returning that he not cause these issues? Someone deleted his posts? Was it a moderator? If so doesn't that meet the threshold? DID A MOD DELETE HIS POSTS ON THIS THREAD? If he is allowed to exhibit his behavior and posting style with CAPS and bold font, I guess the rest of us have the same impunity you are granting him.

And what does this person who causes others to leave give us? BFS and Fight Club
That's what this site turns into when he is allowed to participate. 
The evidence of this is clear how easygoing SN is when he's not here.

I don't come here to argue or be pursued or harassed by him. I don't come here to fight with any one. 
If I didn't have the years invested here or met so many great Sailnetters it would be easy to just walk away. 
Maybe it's why I am so passionate about the bullying behavior.

And in all of this....he has so little boating experience or even have a boat currently, yet he argues with people who do. And he hides behind ....Well it's just arguing about a difference in opinion. My trashman has an opinion about sailing, gets the Internet and čan cut and paste with the best of them. Should I listen to him about sailing too?

Unless he calls me out personally again I will stay away from him. I will not cower from a bully though. We've all been taught to stand up to them.

Unless he can't stay away from me personally i'll Post only in The Chesapeake Forum or through IMs where he has no reason to tread except to come after me. I have many friends there and we talk about our experiences and places we sail to on the Chesapeake. My Chesapeake friends all have boats....they all use them.....they all go out frequently.....and they get together.

Eventually true to his participation in this forum.....another banning will take place. 
I will follow SV Auspicious, and others. They left because of him. They were right.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Donna_F said:


> SanderO sums up my feelings.
> 
> I lurk on several FaceBook forums and lo and behold, they all manage to survive, be interesting, and be fun without the snarkyness.
> 
> That said, how about we put this thread and it's sub-threads to rest?


Better yet, why don't you just drain the swamp? Take a few big swings with that old ban stick!


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

You can attack an idea without attacking the person. But by the third or fourth time you’ve responded to the same person, it has become an attack against the person. It’s the relentlessness, and the insistence on getting the last word, that destroys the environment around here. As someone else said, make your case once and move on.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Donna_F said:


> SanderO sums up my feelings.
> 
> I lurk on several FaceBook forums and lo and behold, they all manage to survive, be interesting, and be fun without the snarkyness.
> 
> That said, how about we put this thread and it's sub-threads to rest?


Except a mod must have seen to deleting Red Head's account and some other posts by Smack. Red is a permanent ban, but Smack is not? Members should understand what they boundaries are. It's clearly not managing to survive on it's own.

Is your post a shoulder shrug over this or are you going to deal with the problem. You know what it is.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Meanwhile:

We've been coming down the ICW the last few days. People are always amazed we can do this in a 6'4" draft boat. I tell them that near as I can tell we hit bottom and get towed off less that the 4-5' draft boats (we never have been towed off and only have had to wait tide once). It's because I use Active Captain and look up the route and the crowd sourced problems. They aren't always right and lots of times they conflict with each other, but over it allows me to be aware and/or tide plan for the problem places. And AC is working pretty much like before the garmon buyout and I've been posting comments of trouble spots both from my laptop on their live map site and iPad using my Aqua Map app.

I all this I never have assumed there was anyone liable for using the info other than myself because not matter what so "I don't know"posters writes, its up to me to use the AC info, charts, etc. to navigate my boat.


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

Don0190 said:


> Meanwhile:
> 
> We've been coming down the ICW the last few days...I use Active Captain and look up the route and the crowd sourced problems. They aren't always right and lots of times they conflict with each other, but over it allows me to be aware and/or tide plan for the problem places.


Yep...when there are noted issues on AC along with lots VHF chatter in the questionable area of concern..it's time to heed the warnings along that stretch of the ICW...


----------



## MacBlaze (Jan 18, 2016)

TakeFive said:


> But by the third or fourth time you've responded to the same person, it has become an attack against the person.


Irony much? The other day I said to myself, "This is really starting to sound a lot like what I imagine a lynch mob does..." Calm down, take your own advice and realize the loudest ain't the best-est and LET IT GO!


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

MacBlaze said:


> Irony much? The other day I said to myself, "This is really starting to sound a lot like what I imagine a lynch mob does..." Calm down, take your own advice and realize the loudest ain't the best-est and LET IT GO!


Really?? "Lynch mob???"

Try "community reacting to a bully."


----------



## MacBlaze (Jan 18, 2016)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Really?? "Lynch mob???"
> 
> Try "community reacting to a bully."


Looking at it from the outside, it's a fine line. Note I didn't say it was, but I sure could feel the frenzy building when the attacks against the authorities (moderaters) started...

Huh...look at me, not paying attention to my own advice. Ok ... letting it go...


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Red Head was someone who registered under a different user name after being banned several years ago for registering under several user names after being banned for more egregious offenses.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

This will be my last post in this thread...

A "bully" follows certain people around the playground and relentlessly harasses them. I invite anyone here to look at my posting history and the threads in which I post and show me where I've done this.

I am confident that what you'll actually find is *exactly the opposite*. Most of the members above who are accusing me of these things and calling for my head will be in those very threads - AFTER I've already posted in the thread, but have made no references to *any* of them. I've not "bullied" anyone in these threads...yet here they come.

In many cases, these guys will not be really talking about the topic in their posts - they will be going after me directly...and will continue that on and on and on. I respond to some of it, but try to ignore it as much as I can.

Here are the only threads I've been in since the beginning of the year where I've had lengthy ongoing discussions. See for yourself *the order* and content of the postings...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-...multihull-popularity-interesting-designs.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...der-bavaria-yachtbau-declares-insolvency.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/313882-tablet-navigation-backup.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/310562-oyster-closing-its-doors.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-happy-happy-no-controversial-cat-thread.html

Who is in whose face in these threads from the beginning?

So, yes, as Mac says - there is a lot of irony here if one cares to look. I've had a different name for it, but I'm glad someone else sees it.

A comment was made a while back about "the prisoner (me) not liking the terms of his punishment" after I'd complained that I couldn't respond to this stuff because of my probation. I think that post was deleted by a mod, but I think it clearly shows the underlying mentality and irony here.

I understand full well that people should be able to post where ever they'd like. I have no problem with any of these guys posting in whatever thread they want. But *if we are really concerned with "in your face posting" and "bullying"* - let's at least look at things through a clear lens and be fair about it.

That's all I ask.

Thanks.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Eyes lift upwards.




.


----------



## dinosdad (Nov 19, 2010)

As a outlier who basically uses the Internet and its forums as a tool not unlike a wrench or pair of pliers , I seldom post , but what I can't understand is if you don't like smack ( or anyone else's posting style , font usage , editing , boat choice , ideas or even the way they make their coffee ) why don't you , the viewer , reader , simply go to your user control panel and put them on ignore - done , no more posts that annoy you , no more posts that don't align with your beliefs . If you don't like a person local to you , do you go over to their house to argue ?
No , you dismiss them from your social circle and move on , you don't go to city hall crying like four year olds in kindergarten to the town council to banish them from the village . I have many people on ignore, I had to "click view to see post "so many times on this thread from all the people who are on my ignore list , all of whom have far more sailing experience than I will ever have but have displayed so much holier than thou attitude in the past I banished them to my personal purgatory over time ( not smacky btw, I rather enjoy reading about different ideas that go against the tide of mass followed ideas and ideals and then see how they fit into my own situation) . I find it laughable that people think viewership is down due to one person ... forums ebb and flow with popularity , and usage , I recenty viewed a new subscriber post a idea about sealing chain plates with butyl from a caulking gun , a person who has obviously sailed far and wide with a fair amount of experience I'm willing to bet , get lambasted by someone here,(who ironically is lamenting a drop in forum posting) for suggesting something different than the norm ....doubt he'll be back , . I'm sure those that no longer post here for whatever reason and are missed by the masses are posting elsewhere and there's no ordinance or law that prevents one from viewing , perusing any of the other sailing sites , there are no oathes of loyalty taken to prevent one from clicking onto C.F. Or my fav S.A. , or any of the manufacturer brand forums . I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors I may have missed but I have seen how editing posts gets some folks underwear knotted up so I'll be leaving it in its original format ......


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

dinosdad said:


> As a outlier who basically uses the Internet and its forums as a tool not unlike a wrench or pair of pliers , I seldom post , but what I can't understand is if you don't like smack ( or anyone else's posting style , font usage , editing , boat choice , ideas or even the way they make their coffee ) why don't you , the viewer , reader , simply go to your user control panel and put them on ignore - done ,


I have been experimenting with the ignore feature a bit, and I do like it. However, there are one or two posters who like to quote people, slice and dice their post up into a dozen little pieces and then attempt to prove every little detail of your post wrong. The goal is to annoy you and bore you into conceding, the fact thing is a red herring, there are rarely verifiable facts that prove anything. That posting style is kind of hard to ignore. For example, I quoted you in this response, and I bet you read my reply, whether you usually read my responses or not.

In this thread, %50 of the posts on the first page were from the same poster, targeting another poster, including the dissection of posts from 2012. The worst of the posts were deleted I assume by the moderators. For the people that haven't read the deleted posts, I can see how this conversation might seem a bit odd.

I have also noticed you don't get this type of stuff on the Facebook forums I am finding myself transitioning to, I am not sure what the difference is.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Eyes lift upwards.
> 
> .


To the the "Sailing with God" thread?????? :angel


----------



## dinosdad (Nov 19, 2010)

Arcb said:


> I have also noticed you don't get this type of stuff on the Facebook forums I am finding myself transitioning to, I am not sure what the difference is.


Have you found any Facebook pages that ...I guess the best term would be get technical? Like the questions and answers we see on dedicated web forums . Most of the FB pages I frequent are of the post a cool pic or local " anyone have a used outboard for sale type questions . It does provide a easy to use format for posting pictures and comments so I do see it as a growth area , as it provides one stop "shopping " , see what friends and family are up to , some funny pet pictures , hobby based pages (sailing etc) ... but man when beneteau posts a video... overly handsome masculine male pulling up to the docks in his high end sports car , hopping aboard his 50+ft boat with his stunningly beautiful wife/girlfriend , perfect weather , incredible background .... then click, I turn my phone off and resume slopping on a coat of bottom paint while drinking a Luke warm beer and eating a underwhelming sandwich...ahh , fantasy meets head on with reality .


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I agree with you Dinosdad, to me sailnet is hands down the best general technical sailing site. Its a nice mix of very experienced sailors, marine professionals, beginners with great ideas or insite from their profession (For example, as a trailer sailor, I love the posts by guys who trailer things for a living) and everything in between.

I currently only belong to two FB groups, one of them is dedicated to boat building and is very technical, but only if you are into building wooden racing boats, it doesnt have the general technical stuff this site has.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

One reason that Facebook pages may not get out of hand is that they can be heavily moderated. Every Facebook page owner can delete objectionable posts, just like moderators here. It's easy to use, and a Facebook page owner doesn't have to get bogged down in committee decisions.

The moderators here seem to be experimenting with self-policing of the forums. Things may be ugly here, but that's what self-policing looks like. Some reasonable amount of moderation can keep things from getting out of hand.

I still think this is a much less interesting place since the true experts got scared away. I'm not at all influenced by marketing hype that gets pasted from other websites - I just scroll past it. There's no substitute for experiences of real experts who have spent decades actually sailing and working on boats and associated equipment. There are some good people around here who fit that description, though it would also be nice to have the pros here.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

dinosdad said:


> As a outlier who basically uses the Internet and its forums as a tool not unlike a wrench or pair of pliers , I seldom post , but what I can't understand is if you don't like smack ( or anyone else's posting style , font usage , editing , boat choice , ideas or even the way they make their coffee ) why don't you , the viewer , reader , simply go to your user control panel and put them on ignore - done , no more posts that annoy you , no more posts that don't align with your beliefs . If you don't like a person local to you , do you go over to their house to argue ?...


Nicely put DD. You've summed up my view and my approach to all this stuff. I find a number of people on this forum kinda annoying at times, and a few I have felt insulted, attacked and bullied from (including some who are calling for Smack's head). But I would never think to call on authorities to officially exile them. I have learned who to ignore and who is worth engaging with. It's pretty easy really.

I don't know Smack's full history. I've found him annoying an abrasive at times. I've also found him interesting and insightful on occasion - much like a lot of people (not all) on this thread.

I just deal with it. If I find someone to be a constant jerk or an idiot, I ignore them. If I dislike a thread, or have nothing useful to say, I ignore it. No big deal.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

I couldn’t figure out how to do it on the SN mobile site earlier or I would have closed the thread. Either take the discussion to off topic or, well, take it to off topic. Also, please stop piling on personal criticisms. It isn’t helpful.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

MacBlaze said:


> Looking at it from the outside, it's a fine line. Note I didn't say it was, but I sure could feel the frenzy building when the attacks against the authorities (moderaters) started...
> 
> Huh...look at me, not paying attention to my own advice. Ok ... letting it go...


OK, let me say two things, and then I will be done with this, too.

I have read parts of this thread but never posted here. What made me speak up is that you called TakeFive part of a Lynch mob. He is one of the most level-headed persons on SN and I could not let that stand.

Second, for the record I want to say that I find Smackdaddy still abrasive but, to his credit, I have to say that he is much less obnoxious than before he was banned 'permanently' from this forum. I suppose he really does make an effort which is to be acknowledged. In another thread, he replied to one of my posts very civilly and made a very useful contribution for which I thank him.

The solution to just ignore posts and posters that one does not want to read seems, on the surface, a good one. The problem with this is that someone obnoxious creates a very unpleasant social climate and some simply decide that they don't want to deal with that. For instance, SVAuspicious was a very knowledgeable and nice person (professional electronics installer, delivery captain etc) who was very willing to share his vast knowledge. He was run off SN by Smackdaddy. Another one is Mainesail who has forgotten more about boat maintenance than I will ever learn. At some point Smackdaddy started lecturing him about boat maintenance and I have noticed that he now appears here very rarely if at all.

I can certainly understand them. They come her because they want to help people and let them partake --pro bono-- of their knowledge, and what they get is abuse. I don't blame them that they say FU, I don't need this sh*t, I am sick of being lectured by ignoramuses.

*This* is the problem, not that people do not know how to use the 'ignore' function. I feel we all lost by losing these experts who were willing to help us.


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

Wow. I see a thread about Active Captain which I really like. I know that someone I ignored more than a year ago had a hair across his ass about it and ranted that one of their competitors was better despite their complete lack of info on most anchorages. 

Since he is on ignore I only see he comments in quotes. Looks like yet another thread ruined by one individual. 

Have you people not found the ignore button? It makes life so much easier. Choose to ignore and free yourself .


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Bleemus said:


> Have you people not found the ignore button? It makes life so much easier. Choose to ignore and free yourself .


Even better is the Ignore Thread button thats not available on Sailnet but is on other forums using the same software.

The whole thread dissapears. wonderful.


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

Came to read about AC changes (AC's basic service was always a great tool even if some of the prior owners' efforts to monetize it were lame) but got 15 pages of drivel. Good job! I see some suggesting FB is the answer . . . good luck. I see more clueless sh*t posted on FB and the good stuff gets buried down thread never to be seen again. It is not searchable or rankable and the trash is weighted as heavily as the gold. I like my Cape Dory list -- I imagine the owner's groups here on SN and also the independent ones probably offer some of the best info even if they are not as active or instantly rewarding as other formats. I really miss chat because it gave some of the give and take of the forums at their best without the personal attacks or never ending bickering about less and less meaningful sh*t. Hope everyone here in the north has a great summer sailing . . . 
BS


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

BTW there’s an Active Captain Facebook page


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

From what I can see, Garmin has taken a useful online planning tool and made it completely worthless. 

I'll miss planning trips on AC but I'll survive. Winters will be longer without plotting out courses and determining distances to all the anchorages you longed to visit.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Ironically, I can still plot courses just fine on my inexpensive nav app. However, the nav app no longer interfaces AC and the AC app no longer does nav. Ugh.

Hoping Navionics integrates soon. I was due for a nav app upgrade.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

AC website would not accept my AC login credentials. However, it did accept my Garmin login credentials.

I tried logging into AC on my Bluecharts mobile app and it also would not accept my AC login credentials. However, it did not accept my Garmin login credentials either. And when I clicked the "create account" link, the message said "The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." I hope it's the latter, as Bluecharts Mobile is my favorite iPhone navigation app for a wide variety of reasons.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Last time I tried the Garmin/AC site didn’t work worth crap.

But my Active Captain marks are working fine on my Aqua Map app, which I mostly use because it is downloaded and useful off line. It even is accepting reviews that upload later.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Yes, I’m using AquaMap also. I used to use Tides and Currents or some such app, but it seems that is no longer maintained. 

The GARMIN iPhone app appears worthless.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

hpeer said:


> Yes, I'm using AquaMap also. I used to use Tides and Currents or some such app, but it seems that is no longer maintained.
> 
> The GARMIN iPhone app appears worthless.


Tides and currents is working for me


----------

