|
eric
Oct 31, 2002, 4:48 AM
Post #1 of 145
(8108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
Pointless threads, vague and meaningless subjects, kiddies upping their post count, useless crap everywhere. Things are worse than usual.
Only you can put an end to it. Move the garbage in General to Community and spank those responsible.
I'd think there are enough moderators, but if you need a hand, I wield a big stick very well.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Oct 31, 2002, 4:54 AM
Post #2 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Go for it. Whack and move to your heart's content... you have root, no one's stopping you.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Oct 31, 2002, 4:57 AM
Post #3 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I'm not a moderator or else I'd smack 'em good!
|
|
|
|
|
jefesuave
Oct 31, 2002, 5:00 AM
Post #4 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 92
|
OH NO!!!!!! Meaningless Threads!!!!!!! what on earth will we do about this travesty?!?
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Oct 31, 2002, 5:00 AM
Post #5 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I agree completely, Eric. I gotta leave now, but I'll check back tomorrow, and I really hope to see that people are paying attention.
|
|
|
|
|
pupjr
Oct 31, 2002, 5:05 AM
Post #6 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2002
Posts: 193
|
not saying we should get rid of all of these meaningless threads, but how general is. so it doesn't show on the main page. if ya wanna read spam, at least make it not bother other people. agree?
|
|
|
|
|
milesdesbrie
Oct 31, 2002, 5:21 AM
Post #7 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 130
|
I agree with khanom, the level of discourse here has dropped quite a few notches. It'd be nice to see rockclimbing.com be an actual useful resource rather than a repository for a bunch of inane blather.
[ This Message was edited by: milesdesbrie on 2002-10-30 21:22 ]
|
|
|
|
|
moun10man
Oct 31, 2002, 5:39 AM
Post #8 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 21, 2002
Posts: 39
|
Quote: OH NO!!!!!! Meaningless Threads!!!!!!! what on earth will we do about this travesty?!?
you guys are killing me!!
Somebody call the thread poliece an arrrest them thar whoolaganns
Just kidding this is a great site I have learned a great deal from the posts and also been amused a great deal.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Oct 31, 2002, 5:40 AM
Post #9 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Let's start a list of the most useless posters...there are some people here that are a royal pain in the arse and NEVER post anything intelligent.
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Oct 31, 2002, 5:46 AM
Post #10 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
NOTE TO LAME POSTERS
This should make everyone happy. There are currently talks between moderators to make posting in the community forum not count toward "total posts" on a users profile. There are several people on this site driving up there "total Post" count by posting meaningless threads. If this goes through, the "lame" posters will be able to post their little topics all over the community forum to their hearts content AND then it will not be an eyesore to so many of the users.
If you have a negative opinion toward this idea please PM me or email me at harleydavidson_usi@hotmail.com I will post it in the moderator's forum so to keep another flamer/lame subject matter off this board.
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Oct 31, 2002, 5:46 AM
Post #11 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
Don't do it Jody! That's a sure way to cause trouble (of course, you're probably joking). Not that trouble is a bad thing, either.
I agree about moving posts to community if they aren't relevant. Keep the general forum (and therefore the front page) at a higher level. The purely amusing stuff can always be found in community, if that's what people are looking for. RC.com's image suffers when 3/4 of the threads on the front page (ones that visitors read most often) are filled with stupid comments, trolls, and "troll feeders" (I just picked that expression up too, rradam. we must have read the same post).
Jan
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Oct 31, 2002, 5:54 AM
Post #12 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
jabbeaux: It wouldn't be appropriate.
There's nothing wrong with meaningless threads. If people want to post and read crap, let them. That's why we have a community forum. Crap goes in there.
I'm starting to wonder if doing away with user ratings was such a good idea. At least then the twits had some incentive not to spew all over.
Right now the only criteria for "measuring" one's "standing" on this website is post count. Bad idea, for obvious reasons. Of course the people who care most about standing are the one's who are least likely to have any...but what can you do?
We need thread police. It's sad but true. If this site is to remain a valuable source of information rather than mere amusement, enforcement of rules is necessary. If we had a self-policing system it wouldn't be so crucial, but we don't.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingcowboy
Oct 31, 2002, 5:56 AM
Post #13 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 1201
|
at the chance of getting flamed let me first say this i enjoy the comuunity forum and the meaningless chatter that goes on there because you can get to know future climbing partners in other states.
However i agree what i dont really like is seeing stupid posts on the front page this site is for climbing INFO with a convenit small area thrown in for people to chat. I agreee theres people throwing stuff in the way wrong forums WTF cant people read?
But i dont get why the post count is goddam-
important? can someone explaine it to me?
|
|
|
|
|
mtnsprts
Oct 31, 2002, 5:59 AM
Post #14 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 125
|
Well, I was under the impression that this site was also designed to accomodate and inform those that are new to the sport and that no question is a dumb one......am I under the wrong impression?
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Oct 31, 2002, 6:00 AM
Post #15 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
andy_lemon: If I understand you correctly, that's only going to make it worse. Their goal is to up their post count, so if they can't do that in community, where are they going to do it?
Frankly I'd much rather see such users have their post count set to 99999 so that (a) the number will be meaningless and (b) so they'll be branded as the losers we know them to be
Or let's concede that the experiment didn't work and get rid of post count all together. On it's own it just seems to encourage bad behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
goodcanuck
Oct 31, 2002, 6:02 AM
Post #16 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 225
|
Why not just make it so that the "community" forum is not shown on the front page? This way you have to cognatively seek out the community page...which actually took me a little while to actually find.(since I wasn't primarily looking for it)
Simple, yet effective solution?...perhaps not if your are programming the site.
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Oct 31, 2002, 6:11 AM
Post #17 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
goodcanuck: posts from the community forum don't show up on the front page. The problem is that half the stuff that is posted in general should be in community.
mtnsprts: you're right, relevant questions like "how do I feed a grigri" are fine, and should be on the front page. It's stuff like "who's the best boulderer," or "wow climbing is so cool we rock!" that belongs in community, but gets posted in other places.
I think the current system is fine, as long as moderators feel empowered to move stuff to community that belongs there. For example, a recent post in general said "we are insane! a bunch of people climbing stuff for no reason!" or something to that effect. Jody replied saying something like "another post from xxx..." He should have moved it to community instead.
Jan
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Oct 31, 2002, 6:15 AM
Post #18 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
mtgeo, I like the post count because it makes it easy to get an idea of how long/much a person uses the site. I see your 400 posts and figure you've been around a little longer than I have. Not always the case, but it's an idea. Like you said, quantity may or (more often) may not equal quality, so I don't use it as a judge of quality. Pay it no mind.
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Oct 31, 2002, 6:19 AM
Post #19 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
Posts like Hueco's "countdown" shouldnt even be in community!
They are so incredibly useless, there ONLY PURPOSE was to increase his post count. This is BULLSH*T. If I had my way, posters like him would be flogged. This goes for all the other posters (notice they all are new(er) to this site) who just dont get it.
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Oct 31, 2002, 6:21 AM
Post #20 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
I see most of your points here... they are good but The fact is that they are just posting to drive up their post count. If they truely like posting in the community forum then they will post there no matter if they get credit for posts or not. right? that should be the case.
If they Do go elsewhere I'm sure our moderators will edit, slash, burn, smother, hack, slander, & delete their posts. This should not be too much extra work for moderators as we have 2 in most forums and 8 in the General forum. Plenty of moderators to go around ya see.
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Oct 31, 2002, 6:27 AM
Post #21 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
The last time I tried to do away with one of the inane I'm-going-to-try-to-up-my-post-count threads, I got bitched at by everybody and their brother..
I'm all for wielding a big black stick, and trust me, I wield it well.
Then again, I don't mind being branded the forum nazi.
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Oct 31, 2002, 6:30 AM
Post #22 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
The hell with it, we have eliminated the Q ratings, the Contribution Points, why not total posts.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingcowboy
Oct 31, 2002, 6:31 AM
Post #23 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 1201
|
i think the whole post count thing is kinda lame look at me i havent been here that long and i have alot of posts.
BUT alot of them are from good answers to peoples questions and me posting relative questions, but alot are also from me just wanting to talk to other climbers about BS onthe site. so why not instead of a posts count homany years climbing count?
i dont look at a post count to get advice i take in whos been giving good advice and that others agree with that person. look how many posts PPPete has but there are people with much less experanice who have a high count to that i wouldnt ask about climbing stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
goodcanuck
Oct 31, 2002, 6:33 AM
Post #24 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 225
|
'K i just kindda noticed that they don't show up...cool.
I have to argue the fact that "the more posts the better the quality of beta or the more knowledgable you are".
I frequent another site and have only about 150 posts, yet have been there since '99. there are many before and after me that have thousands more posts than me. The diff is that I (usually) don't post shitte. (well not always...but I won't say never)...main thing is that if I answer a serious post I will usually only post if I have "good reason" (or, of course, if someone said something really freakin' funny)
But seriously...it like guys and fast cars and big trucks....the more posts, the more prowis they have.....me, I just like to sit back and know I'm a "Cunning Linguist"
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Oct 31, 2002, 6:38 AM
Post #25 of 145
(8106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
This is not a debate on "who has more posts has less knowledge". This is a debate on posts in the community forum not counting toward your total post.
It really shouldn't be that big of a deal unless the only reason you post in the community forum is to drive up your "total post" count.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingcowboy
Oct 31, 2002, 6:46 AM
Post #26 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 1201
|
Andy:
if the count isnt to reflect a knowledgeable user who regualry particapates at this site to look at for correct answers then what good is it i just dont get it?
just because you take away the community posts counting what have you done? how will these post counts help me?
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Oct 31, 2002, 6:50 AM
Post #27 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
To reflect toward your "site contributions". You don't have to be a knowledgeable Big Wall climber to be giving beta on your local choss pile. The "total posts" should reflect on the amount of beta you are giving... not who is more knowledgable, just who is giving more. The community forum destracts from this.
|
|
|
|
|
goodcanuck
Oct 31, 2002, 6:54 AM
Post #28 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 225
|
Actually,
the site I also go to is www.pcmech.com, in their ID info, under your name and where you are from. They also have the month and year that you joined.
I havn't bothered with it for a while, but, you can see what I mean...very well done...and you can decide if you want email notices to your replies to a topic, not just if you create a thread.
[ This Message was edited by: goodcanuck on 2002-10-30 22:55 ]
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Oct 31, 2002, 6:56 AM
Post #29 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
What? We have that too eh? look at your profile, Month/Year/Day.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingcowboy
Oct 31, 2002, 7:00 AM
Post #30 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 1201
|
i dont mean to piss anyone off please dont take my posts that way they are honest questions.
when i first joined this site i thought this guy must be smart and climb alot because hes a "offical addict"and has 5000000 posts, or this guy must be new because hes only a "belayr" but i quickly came to find out this wasnt the case, that shot down my whole idea of how great these titles and post counts were.
Geoff
[ This Message was edited by: climbingcowboy on 2002-10-30 23:04 ]
|
|
|
|
|
goodcanuck
Oct 31, 2002, 7:04 AM
Post #31 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 225
|
Andy,
They arn't on the direct left of your posts. Where your userid and location is. That's all.
It just makes it easier for people to know how long you've been involved. This way I don't have to look up your profile to see how long you've been here. (especially since I just look up the girls to see their profile pics )
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Oct 31, 2002, 7:08 AM
Post #32 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
Andy, this actually isn't a debate about not having community posts count toward total posts... that's just one suggestion. The overall question was how to deal with all the irrelevant posts that are on the front page, and therefore not in community where they belong. You're turning it into a debate about that, but other ideas should be heard too.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 31, 2002, 7:10 AM
Post #33 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
I just went through and cleaned up the General Board. I will start keeping a closer eye on the content inside the posts and weed out the posts/users that refuse to abid by the established policies.
|
|
|
|
|
jhwnewengland
Oct 31, 2002, 7:17 AM
Post #34 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 470
|
Oh, you beat me too it.
Lookie here
[ This Message was edited by: jhwnewengland on 2002-10-30 23:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
climbingcowboy
Oct 31, 2002, 7:23 AM
Post #35 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 1201
|
thanks roughster thats all that needs to be done, and if a certain person is persistant then pm him. way to step in and handle it.
your right Jan i got a little off topic to, its not about post count its about people that are our mods having the time to take care of people that dont read the descriotion or just dont care.
[ This Message was edited by: climbingcowboy on 2002-10-30 23:24 ]
|
|
|
|
|
nikegirl
Oct 31, 2002, 7:37 AM
Post #36 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 5662
|
Good work all!
This is a team, eh?
I love this family/community
*really I do*
keep it up !!!
workin together*
T
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Oct 31, 2002, 4:28 PM
Post #37 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
If the main reason for keeping the post count seems to be to give us an idea of how long a person's been around, why not replace post count with join date on the forums, and not keep track of post count?
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Oct 31, 2002, 4:35 PM
Post #38 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Juliana: I don't know where anybody ever got the idea that the reason we have a post count on this site was to keep track of peoples "knowledge" or "how long they have been here". Why would we need this? It says on all of our freakin profiles when we joined.
The total post count is for fun. ok people! Instead of creating reasons that we have the total post count lets concider it a "fun tool". More of a previlage. Why did I use the word previlage? Because if we ALL don't come to a conclusion on people in the community forum driving up their post count then none of us will ever see it again.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Oct 31, 2002, 4:37 PM
Post #39 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
hmm, post count appears to have resurfaced.
I like Juliana's idea, ''member since MM-DD-YYYY'' like American Express. Hmmm.
Anyone oppose this?
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Oct 31, 2002, 6:31 PM
Post #40 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
How about de-emphasizing post count (and the associated "rank") by moving it to the profile and only displaying "member since..." under the person's handle in posts?
I mean, it is kinda interesting to know. It just shouldn't be displayed so prominently, imho.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 31, 2002, 7:27 PM
Post #41 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Why do we have post counts at all?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 31, 2002, 7:43 PM
Post #42 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
They reward people for posting multiple worthless messages.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 31, 2002, 7:44 PM
Post #43 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
We should eliminate post counts altogether.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 31, 2002, 7:45 PM
Post #44 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Until we do, stuff like this will keep going on.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Oct 31, 2002, 8:14 PM
Post #45 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
Post count only in profiles-- I like that.
I think that the titles to go with posts (although fun) only make it worse...
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Oct 31, 2002, 8:51 PM
Post #46 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I agree that if we "need" to have post counts, then restrict 'em to the profiles, and ABSOLUTELY don't count Community Forum posts toward that total. There's no point to the contrivance of "rewarding" for contributing posts.
People used to come here for quality discussion. They will still do that without getting a "reward" for posting. The only "loss" to RC.com will be the visitors who come just to acquire points, or a higher status label, etc. If there is no reward for such behavior, then the behavior will eventually stop. Good quality discussion is its own reward.
So, let's get back to a higher quality climbing oriented website.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Oct 31, 2002, 8:59 PM
Post #47 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Why don't y'all just step off your high horses for a moment and realize that the internet is INTERTAINMENT.
Some of us find the stuck up "lets get back to high quality, serious climbing posts" a lot more offensive than 14 year olds upping their post count by "hanging out" in the Community Forum.
SHEESH !!@!!1
|
|
|
|
|
rck_climber
Oct 31, 2002, 9:21 PM
Post #48 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2001
Posts: 1010
|
Good point Headcrak, it's all to easy to get caught up in the details of things.
However, having said that, I still agree with the rest of the replies here in that something does need to be done ~ aside from closer moderating. That's not a solution to the problem, it simply fixes each incident.
Personally, I agree w/ Andy's idea and setting up the system so that Community posts do not count toward your post count.
Just my thoughts.
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Oct 31, 2002, 11:00 PM
Post #49 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I guess I don't quite get the finer nuances of Headcrack's thoroughly argued perspective, but....
How about putting in HUGE FONT SIZE a banner at the top of the Forum Index, with the instruction to go to the Forum Search and look for the topic in an existing thread before posting a new one. For example, there's another "new" thread about Sharma and marijuana. And, make the Search key for the Forums much more prominent (it's almost hidden, like it's embarrassed to be there at all).
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-10-31 15:02 ]
|
|
|
|
|
spandexomo
Oct 31, 2002, 11:16 PM
Post #50 of 145
(6575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 34
|
dood, its the internet. get over yourselves. its not even real life. your fighting over something that means NOTHING.
|
|
|
|
|
psnoonan
Oct 31, 2002, 11:24 PM
Post #51 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 26
|
I agree with headcrak. This site can be used for educational purposes and for entertainment. I like it for checking out other people that climb and to pass time. Some of you are too intense about the wrong thing. Use the intensity for climbing, not ranting about the climbing website.
[ This Message was edited by: psnoonan on 2002-10-31 15:27 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Oct 31, 2002, 11:29 PM
Post #52 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
It's not "real life"?
Then what the hell is it? My imagination?
|
|
|
|
|
spandexomo
Oct 31, 2002, 11:38 PM
Post #53 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 34
|
unless your gonna use this on ur resumes and prove me wrong, YEH, teh internet is in your HEAD.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Oct 31, 2002, 11:53 PM
Post #54 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Chekit.
Some topics need to be talked about again, with different people.
People don't come here to read about what SOME PEOPLE 2 MONTHS AGO felt about Sharma gettin' baked... they want to hear what the current, active users feel about certain things.
What if everyone just went and looked up old HELMET THREADS and read them instead of posting new ones ?
It wouldn't suck, except for 2 reasons:
1. Technology, prices and availability change over time.
2. People come here not only for good advice, but to INTERACT with OTHER PEOPLE who are visiting the site at the same time they are.
If you direct them to old threads because YOU already tlaked about it before... then how will they ever have the same experience with the site that YOU got ?
How did YOU get YOUR post count ?
In the Community Thread?
If not, you probably aren't into upping your post count with meaningless drivel. But that stuff exists as well, and people should be allowed to interact with other people in that fashion, without somoene else deciding that it isn't WORTH as much. amazingly enough, upping post counts with community forum posts is important to some people, and if you take it away from them... it will cause them to enjoy their rc.com experience LESS, man.
And you don't wanna be THAT GUY.
Let people talk about what they want. Keep the forums distinct, but with purpose. Lets the TARDS have their postcount.
And let what people don't want to talk about just go down the list into oblivion.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 1, 2002, 2:37 AM
Post #56 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
OMFG.
That's your only critique of my post ?
Jeuss fcuking chirst!
I cunt spell 4 sith!°"!°!°°||||11
Concede everything else to me because I am a fast typist and the phpbb1 doesn't have spell check feature enabled!!!
WHY DONT THOSE OF YOU WHO BITCH ABOUT SPELLING CHIP IN AND PAY FOR THE SOFTWARE UPGRADE THAT EXISTS !!!111
Read the message not the words, SOUrpuss!
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 1, 2002, 5:15 AM
Post #57 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Ok Crackhead...
Quote:People don't come here to read about what SOME PEOPLE 2 MONTHS AGO felt about Sharma gettin' baked...
How do you know? You joined October the 1st, 2002.
[ This Message was edited by: andy_lemon on 2002-10-31 21:18 ]
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 1, 2002, 5:56 AM
Post #58 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Doosh has been around a lot longer than last month, and has seen a bunch of things change. Not least of which was his own conduct.
I prefer his contributions to those of many other users, but I'm a pretty sick puppy... anyways, the point is that the userdata you can see, isn't always the whole truth.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 1, 2002, 5:19 PM
Post #59 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
How do I know ?!?!?!
I *think* I know a bit about why people log onto the internet. I have qualifications which give me insight.
BUt, rather than stoop to letting you rub my sheepskin, I'd prefer to deal with your question as it is posted...
Since I just joined in 1 October, 2002 (wink wink)... there is NO WAY I am going to search the archives to see what people before I got here felt about Sharma's drug use. I would prefer to ask the current set of users posting what THEY think about it.
And if old users who have seen the topic before don't want to respond, well THEN THEY SHOULDN'T OPEN THE THREAD.
And they especially shouldn't open the thread to point a new user at an old thread and lock the damn thing. Why does the new user come here to post ? FOR ARCHIVED READING PURPOSES?? ? Hell no.
Interaction.
Between people, sharing communication.
The action of moderators pointing to old threads and locking the topic just pisses people off and drives away new users.
DUh.
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 1, 2002, 6:38 PM
Post #60 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Quote:there is NO WAY I am going to search the archives to see what people before I got here felt about Sharma's drug use. I would prefer to ask the current set of users posting what THEY think about it.
Ok, so Sharma's drug use can be a ongoing project, reaping various changes. But what about Top Rope setups. There is only so many topics that need to be posted about how to rig a top rope setup. A little moderation is in need here... or what about directions to J-tree like 100 times??? We only need this once.
Quote:And if old users who have seen the topic before don't want to respond, well THEN THEY SHOULDN'T OPEN THE THREAD.
This conflicts with your next quote...
Quote:The action of moderators pointing to old threads and locking the topic just pisses people off and drives away new users.
...Then they shouldn't post it.
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 1, 2002, 6:44 PM
Post #61 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Quote:I *think* I know a bit about why people log onto the internet. I have qualifications which give me insight.
Then fill out your profile and let us know a little about yourself. No need to hold back on any qualifications.
|
|
|
|
|
mshore
Nov 1, 2002, 7:00 PM
Post #62 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 114
|
Just one question for everyone.........
Who the frig cares how many posts each user has? Do you feel important because you have 819 posts on this site. Stop the bitching - who cares - go climb something.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 1, 2002, 8:12 PM
Post #63 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Most of the advice in the genre of "get over it" seems to come from the newer users, the younger users, and the people who are relatively new to climbing overall. Obviously, these folks don't have the experience with RC.com to be able to appreciate this topic.
It's pretty incredible to me to hear someone say, seemingly with pride, that they don't care what someone has said before they got interested in the topic. It's not a surprising sentiment, but it's surprising that the person has the "guts" to so publicly admit to his own solopsism.
There are a number of reasons to Search the Forums before starting a new thread. One is similar to the good sense that is shown by someone who reads all the posts in a given thread before posting a reply. To not do so is like coming into the middle of a conversation, and assuming that you know all there is to say, that what you have to say is uniquely important, is an original thought unique to you, and everyone else's thoughts are subordinate to yours. And, it also assumes that what other people have already said will not spur your own thoughts, and is not worth considering.
When an "old" thread is posted to, it brings the whole thread back to the front of that Forum directory (and to the front page). It's like a "real life" (yes, Virginia, the internet is real) example of how history is always being written; it's a continuum. Instead, you seem to want to assert that you (or people who act like this) are somehow removed, above, special and apart from the whole contiuous spectrum of climbing, and the thoughts and discussions of issues thereof.
That could be arrogance. It could be laziness. It could be naivete. It could be stupidity.
There is no less quality to the interactive experience of a user of RC.com from reading through the Forums and threads that pre-exist their posting. In fact, reading the posts that other people have submitted would significantly enhance the experience. The suggestion that people don't want to have to read what other people have already had to say, is like saying it's okay to come into a crowded room and just start shouting for attention, irrespective of the conversations that are already under way.
Another important aspect of this discussion is the concern for what RC.com is, or wants to be. It is not, and the owners don't want it to become, a wide open free-for-all set of Forums. There are other places for that on the web. As the number of visitors grows, there also grows the risk of losing the identity of the site to its visitors. There are stated purposes for the Moderators and the Administrators, and I believe that the majority of us want them in place to keep RC.com a superior climbing website. Greater and greater numbers of visitors could cause an overload of junk on the site and in the forums; as the number of visitors increases, the number of posts can grow exponentially, overwhelming the Moderators who try to keep the site organized, cohesive, and of high quality. That's partly why some of us are trying to raise a bit of an alarm to what we, many of whom have been at RC.com for awhile, see as a growing problem that threatens the quality of the site.
I suspect that if anyone is truly offended by this kind of discussion, they would probably also be offended by my objection to their shitting on my lawn, playing their radio at a concert, and talking on their cell phone in church. If their offended: good.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-01 12:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 1, 2002, 8:35 PM
Post #64 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
This topic is all well and good, and it's terrific for all you "old hat users" with "enough rc.com experience to appreciate this thread" to sit here and outline the way things SHOULD be done by new users of the site...
But you overlook one important fact.
IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE WAY THAT USERS BEHAVE.
Sure, they SHOULD "continue the continuum of history" (although the arguement can be made that conversations ON THE SAME SUBJECT are stopped and restarted with different people multiple times a day) and search and READ the ARCHIVES and shit.
BUT THEY WON'T.
So, you can either approach the issue from a "I have enough rc.com experience to know that this place shouldn't be a free for all, so you guys better do what I say" stance, or you could approach the issue from a "well, people are going to behave THIS WAY, regardless of how I personally feel they should behave" point of view.
The first point of view is wonderful and all, but YOU CANNOT MAKE PEOPLE DO IT.
And by locking threads, taking away community forum post counts, pointing people who want dynamic interaction to static archived topics... you will diminish their experience.
Sure, it might be the 1000th time you have had to see a "How do I get to Jtree" thread floating around... but you never know when that new thread will offer up some new information or allow a new user to offer up their experience... and not on page 9 of a thread from last year.
I have, since August 2000, posted at least 8500 posts to various messageboards across the web. I have seen HUNDREDS of topics about going to bishop. However, next time I go to Bishop, I will prolly start a new thread on it, if not for the directions (which I know I can find, but its nice to have someone give them right there...) then for the simple fact of knowing WHO ELSE from internetland is going to be out there.
Interaction.
Reading 9 pages of Old Thread is not interacting with people on the site.
Not one of you olde tymers has addressed this issue of interaction, and why interacting with new people on a regular basis is bad.
If you did, and your arguement was good... I might leave and just go read the archives.
Perhaps they will have some insight as to when Y'ALL were N00bs and not stuck up tightasses about how new people SHOULD post.
|
|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Nov 1, 2002, 8:45 PM
Post #65 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
This thread is completely pointless and khanom should be banned for trying to up his kiddie post count.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 1, 2002, 8:56 PM
Post #66 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Quote:There is no less quality to the interactive experience of a user of RC.com from reading through the Forums and threads that pre-exist their posting.
How is reading the same as interacting ?
When I want to interact with people, I don't go read a magazine.
I start a conversation.
Even when you walk into a room filled with people conversing, you generally don't make people repeat the entire conversation they have been having just so you know what you are talking about when it's your turn... you generally just jump right in and learn backstory as you go along.
Even a "so what were you guys talking about?" won't get you the entire conversation repeated at you... and if it did, you'd prolly just ask for the gist of it.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 1, 2002, 9:26 PM
Post #67 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
This thread is addressed to the Moderators, generally urging them to keep the Forums better organized. Some of the suggestions for user behavior are idealized, in part because if we don't know what the ideal objective is, then we can't plan a course of action to move towards it.
And, there are things that can be done to influence, restrict, moderate -however you want to put it- the behavior of visitors to RC.com. If there are user behaviors that are restricted or moderated to such an extent that such users find it too incovenient to keep coming back, then those behaviors have effectively been changed or stopped.
If RC.com adopted your '"well, people are going to behave THIS WAY, regardless of how I personally feel they should behave" point of view' then the site would indeed become an anarchic free-for-all. Are you suggesting that Trevor and the Admins, and users with my opinion have no choice? That this is the inevitable way RC.com will go?
Other than in the specific Archive Forum, previous threads on a topic within a Forum are not inactive. People who go to a thread with many pages can easily go to the last page, if it's so vital to get a dose of how you define "interaction". You seem to assume that the sole purpose of RC.com is to have this "interaciton", and that elements such as the Route Database, Articles, Photos, etc. are not worth the visit. And, no one said that interacting with new people on a regular basis is a bad thing. I am asserting that RC.com is much more than just that, and that moderated and organized interaction, other than in the Community Forum, generates a far higher quality experience.
You're right, when I encounter an ongoing conversation, I don't demand a recap; I also don't enter a room demanding attention from all the people there ahead of me. I don't assume that I have the funniest joke, the wisest insight, the most interesting or unique experience to share. I get to know something of who is in the room, and wander around first to hear some of the different conversations going, before I take it upon myself to assume that I am welcome to join in, or have anything of value to contribute. It's pretty arrogant to assume that in a party of strangers -and that's what a website forum is- you are going to be warmly welcomed to burp, scratch, fart, pick your nose, and repeatedly ask, "Where's the bathroom?" It's also extremely rude to come to BYOB party with nothing to contribute.
I don't agree with your characterization of "interactivity", and I certainly don't agree that RC.com cannot hope to moderate the use of its site to keep it a high quality place to visit.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-01 13:30 ]
|
|
|
|
|
bsperes
Nov 1, 2002, 9:46 PM
Post #68 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2000
Posts: 292
|
Hey Andy and jds, whom I will call newbies (that's right check my join date bucko). I am not a newb, not new to climbing and I agree with headcrak.
Yes people need to stop opening double topics or starting them again cause no one responded. But if someone wants to ask about Anasazi velcros they should not have to read through every shoe post first. This is an internet forum, not a research database. I know a lot about climbing shoes and have post the same things in countless topics to try and help out my fellow climbers.
If you want less duplicative postings, which I have argued is a bad idea, then the site needs to be redesigned to have a list of posts in certain categories, i.e. belay devices, shoes, ratings. The search function is only so useful.
Some of you "older, more experienced" boardmembers might wonder why I have been around for so long with so few posts. 'cause I post where it is fun and interactive, i.e. not here. This should be both a place to get info on climbing and to interact with other climbers. Don't underestimate the importance of the community forum.
If any of you want to interact with climbers, but rarely discuss climbing head over to boldering.com. We won't make too much fun of you...well at first we might.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 2, 2002, 12:13 AM
Post #69 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Gee, bsperes, thanks for underscoring a few of my points. No one said that a "member since date" was an indication of greater "rights", or whatever you're trying to get at. I'm unclear on your point about your tenure since registering at RC.com. My observation was that most of the comments to the effect of "get over it" were (are) from people with relatively less time at RC.com, and less time climbing, and therefore have less of a perspective on this particular topic. Congratulations if you happen to not be one of the people to whom I refer, for whatever that's worth. If you don't care to contribute here, don't. If b.com is more what you like, have at it over there.
The Forum Search functions quite well, actually. Someone wanting info on Anasazi velcros could find the info they're looking for, from opinions, where to buy 'em, how the fit, etc., just by typing in "Anasazi velcro" into Search, and glancing through the threads that result. If someone wants information, isn't a database of forum threads on the very subject they're inquiring about a good idea? Searching the Forums as a whole will likely generate a good number of threads to check for the info, and if they narrow the Search to just one Forum, then the results are narrower, which may be exactly what they want. So, what's wrong with Search?
If, however, someone is just looking to socialize, then the Community Forum is there, the Chat Room is there (though, apparently, there are problems with it that I don't know about, because I don't go there). AND, there are plenty of existing threads to participate in.
No one is saying don't post new topics; I am speaking for myself when I strongly urge that people Search the Forums first. Saying that this is an "internet forum" does not mean that it cannot have structure that makes it more effective, efficient, informative, and entertaining (depending on your definition of entertaining). If you don't like the style, layout, guidelines, tone, or whatever, of a structured website forum, then, sure it makes sense that you wouldn't spend much time here. I hope you enjoy your time wherever you do spend your time, but I enjoy RC.com for what has been its much greater efficiency at finding what I'm looking for quickly, and locating a discussion to participate in quickly. The alternative, as clearly displayed at other websites, is to troll the miscellany, trying to decipher goofy titles, checking some to see what they actually mean, and maybe -just maybe- finding an interesting topic. Then, you post. Then, you wait. And, wait. Sometimes you wait for your post to appear; sometimes you wait for someone else to respond. It's usually a fairly long wait.
At RC.com, people can generally navigate in and out of different Forums and threads, and reply far more quickly than at other websites. And, the rest of the site has, again, a far superior bunch of features, that are easier to navigate.
But, I suppose you mean more-or-less real-time interaction with other climbers. That's very do-able here. So, what's the problem with the guidelines for "interaction" that have gotten RC.com to the level of participation and reputation that it enjoys? How have the guidelines hindered its success so far? You and others may argue about RC.com's reputation, but the high number of visits are a good indicator, as is the level of participation as observed by the all the responses made in the forums on any given day.
Quote:"If any of you want to interact with climbers, but rarely discuss climbing, head over to boldering.com." If that's what you want from your climbing website experience, I think you're probably right that you can get that better from a website other than RC.com. You can still get some of that here, in the Community Forum. No one is "underestimating the importance of the Community Forum"; but the stuff that goes into the Community Forum shouldn't be found in the other topical Forums.
Let's see: RockClimbing.com is mainly about climbing, so if you want to "interact" with climbers about climbing, then this is the place.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-01 16:25 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 2, 2002, 12:33 AM
Post #70 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Okok...
I at least understand what you are talkin about.
You are making my arguements worse than they seem. I am not saying that rc.com should kotow to every behavior of every user and write it all off as "we can do nothing about htis..."
I think that they SHOULD allow for more interaction, because as bperes said, this is a FORUM, not an information databse.
This doesn't mean that they should allow people to walk in and mess stuff up (hack, superflaming, etc...) without taking notice and taking an appropriate step to counteract teh disruptive person. I am not calling for a TOTAL LACK OF MODERATION.
I just think that locking topics and pointing people to archives does not make this a friendly forum to visit.
To do this with as FEW words as possible:
Say YOU want to know what the best helmet is and you are about to walk into a room of people. Would you prefer to ask them and have them welcome you and your gumby question, or would you rather they point you to a copy of Mountaineering, Freedom of the Hills and a chair in the corner ?
Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
Nov 2, 2002, 1:03 AM
Post #71 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
I haven't read through all of the posts on this thread, so if this has been stated previously, please excuse my interruption.
I think a lot of the reason behind deleting old threads, keeping post counts down and locking redundant threads have to do with server memory. This server has crashed many times due to depleted bandwidth due to users online and the sheer memory it takes to run this site. Upgraded servers costs $$ and donations from users are hard to get. A way to increase the memory is to keep redundant threads from happening (i.e. not "How do I get to Bishop?", but maybe "Who is going to Bishop this weekend?") and delete some of the useless stuff. I know that "useless by whose standards?" would be an issue, but maybe a consensus could be reached.
Please correct me if I am wrong since I really know very little about running a website and maybe forums take up too little space to even bother with cleaning house. But if they do take up some space, that may be the issue. Otherwise, why would anybody delete anything old or direct others to new threads and then lock them? Why would anybody want to take up their free to do such a task?
~Erica
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 2, 2002, 1:16 AM
Post #72 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
To be honest, I would probably prefer to have 'em give me the book so I could do a little learning on my own, but that's really just my personality, and doesn't have to be analogous to this situation.
I think it's actually helpful to be pointed to threads that discuss the topic that a "new" post is asking about. With very rare exception, the few locked threads I've seen have included good and friendly explanations and directions. That's what makes the unfriendly, heavy-handed lock-outs seem that much worse, by contrast to the intended use of that tool.
With the ever-growing number of visitors to RC.com, and the accompanying posts to the Forums, if the site isn't managed fairly, closely, and consistently, it will become too unwieldly to be of any value.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-01 17:16 ]
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 2, 2002, 6:05 AM
Post #73 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
For the guy calling people "bucko". WTF does your "joined on date" have to do with anything? John Gill joined on May 18, 2002, tell him he is a newbie...
[ This Message was edited by: andy_lemon on 2002-11-01 22:09 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 2, 2002, 7:22 PM
Post #74 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
How will the site become too unwieldy to be of any value ?
The topics which are locked and have links going to them ARE ALREADY STORED IN THE DATABASE.
This means that, if I search the archives for "Helmets," I'll get a certain % of legit topics and a certain % of topics pointing me to other topics.
Since those topics are already in the database, why not just let them all become discussion topics IF PEOPLE WANT TO DISCUSS THAT TOPIC AT THAT TIME ?
What does it hurt ?
Certainly, database SIZE is not so important, what with all the atopics being discussed already and the size of small bits of txt written to mySQL or whatever database backend they are using. (In other words, the posts aren't going to break the database size and the topics all already are written to the database)...
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 2, 2002, 7:48 PM
Post #75 of 145
(6206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I don't mean "unwieldy" in the sense of servers and technical reason. I mean that the Index pages for the Forums could easily become crowded with "new" topic threads that have been (or are being) covered in other threads that are not locked in the Archive Forum, but are either active in the appropriate Forum, or dormant (not locked) in the appropriate Forum, that will be moved to the front again by virtue of the new post to it.
As people kind of age with RC.com, as they come back time and time again, they're looking for something new, relative to their own experience on the site. If the Forum Index pages are consistently overloaded by new threads on topics that are already opened elsewhere, then the site will become mostly a place for people new to RC.com. Frequent and long-time users will find (are finding) it too inconvenient and inefficient to troll through the Forum Index pages, looking for something that has substance to someone who is not so new the site.
"Unwieldy" in the sense of an imbalance of weight on the side of relatively newer visitors, instead of supporting a broader range of new and experienced users.
(Do you mean "the topics that are locked and have links going from them..."? I know that the threads that have links directed to them are in the database; they should still be active -unlocked. And, yeah, the threads that are locked, and have re-direct links posted in the final post are also stored. But, yeah, I don't know that storage size is an issue; that's not my arguement.)
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-11-02 11:53 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 3, 2002, 3:26 PM
Post #76 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Look at it this way, guy.
You could either work really hard to try to maintain your sense of balance, what with you knowing what sense you mean wieldly and/or unwieldly in. You could trust people to maintain that balance and make sure that no topic is being discussed in (omfg, tell me it ain't so!) 2 places at ONCE. You could TELL PEOPLE who haven't AGED with RC.com the proper etiquette for posting to topics that have been discussed before. You could MODERATE their asses when they don't do what YOU think they shoudl do. You can get ANGRY that not enough moderation or too much moderation has taken place when your views of equilibrium differ from those of the moderator. And you can deal with the little mini-powertrip that some moderators go through...
Or you could just leave the forum alone and topics that people don't want to discuss will slide down the index into oblivion.
That's my point: your way is well and good and Trevor is well within his right as a site owner to maintain the first system... but then you have threads like this and people like rrrAdam speaking out in defense of moderator priviledge.
The other way is just EASY.
Yeah, sure, 1 topic gets discussed in 2 places at once. So what ?
A boldering thread might survive in the general forum. So effin what ?
Suffice it to say you and I have different opinions on forum moderation... and only one of us wants to actively PUSH our beliefs on other people...
And no, I don't want that tract you're passing out either.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Nov 3, 2002, 4:05 PM
Post #77 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
". Jody replied saying something like "another post from xxx..." He should have moved it to community instead.
I would have but I am not a moderator newengland.
jt512...good posts but if you would break those loooooong posts up into several smaller posts it would pad your post count better!
I have been on the site over a year and that makes me smarter than all of you!
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Nov 3, 2002, 4:12 PM
Post #78 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
headcrack, while i think you post has some cool philosophical points, i'm with jds100 all the way on this. it's annoying as s--- to sift through bs when i want climbing info.
and i would beg to differ on your point that you're not pushing your views off on everyone else. you're spamming the crap out of the site to get at adam, without considering the amount of frustration that it causes the other 9716 other registered users.
personally, it gets on my nerves, and until i see more positive climbing-related contributions from one of your id's (which is where you would be contributing if you really gave a crap about the site), i'll fully support any and all of your id's getting banned.
dont get me wrong, i'm probably among the most stupidly people-loving people on this site, but i'm really tired of your little regime complaining about being treated like a group of punks when that's what you're acting like. if you dont like the way you're being treated, then quit acting like a group of little assholes, and the admins/mods will quit mod'g you as such ..
and shut up about the facist bs. if you truly feel oppressed on this site, then why dont you try living under truly oppressive conditions for a while. from what i've seen, you've only gotten what you deserve, and there's a huge difference in getting your just desserts and being unfairly censored. personally, i vote for the censorship of pricks and assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Nov 3, 2002, 4:21 PM
Post #79 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Go Amber!
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 4, 2002, 12:45 AM
Post #80 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
I am NOT complaining about fascist government of the site.
I am merely expousing a different look at moderation, since THIS METHOD obviously PEEVES PEOPLE.
I didn't start this thread, but I disagree with it. I am participating in whatever topics I choose to, and when climbing is the topic, I either give helpful info or my opinion or whatever. When the topic is "Moderators, Wake up," I discuss that.
I am not here to bug Adam, but I will take an oppotunity to tell him he's an idiot.
Because he is.
He portrays himself as "the authority figure of rc.com" and deigns to know what is best "for everyone." He repeatedly holds his $350 donation over the heads of everyone... and he uses a holier-than-thou tone when he does it. Fake authority. People who disagree with him are labelled "detractors" and either insulted (as I have been) or disrespected (as I have been by him revealing sensitive information which he knows I would appreciate left private). He abuses his ability to look up sensitive information of the users to the point of breaking the law. SUre, it can be "justified" when it's in order to ban a disruptive user more effectively, but when it is only to reveal information which should be kept private... that's a dickhead maneuver.
And it only doesn't suck until it's YOUR account which it happens to.
Especially when I am participating in the manner I SHOULD...
As I have said before and will say again for the benefit of you judgemental folks who dislike me and can't seem to READ what I friggin' WRITE:
I support the multiforum system. I recognize the need for rc.com to police itself more than a smaller site.
But I think that topics (in the correct forum) should be allowed to be started in more than one place without being locked. I think that new people should be able to discuss an old subject in a new thread without being pointed to archived threads.
I don't hold or express those opinions just because I'm out to get Adam.
I don't have to prove my motive for being here to you, but I can tell you your crappy assumptions are INCORRECT.
And jmlangford, STFU...
|
|
|
|
|
boltakrak
Nov 4, 2002, 1:24 AM
Post #81 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2002
Posts: 40
|
those lameos' have gots to knock it off, what a bunch of dinks
|
|
|
|
|
lilred
Nov 4, 2002, 9:07 PM
Post #82 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2002
Posts: 1100
|
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 4, 2002, 10:08 PM
Post #83 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
re: Interacting with users...
There are several threads that get repeated on a timely basis. Once 30 users have given their opinion, but then the same question comes up again, do you suggest that the users who replied to the original reply again and again, ad infinatum(sp?) ???
I don't think anyone is talking about locking and linking to old Archived (means locked here) threads.
How many times has a user been supplied with a link only to reply with "oops, guess I should have looked". The Mods have enough "experience" within their Forums to know what has been discussed before and link that topic to the redundant thread. It would seem to me, that if a user asked a question, and a Mod provided a link to a thread discussing that topic with 50+ replies, that user got quite a bit of info for just one reply.
But then again, we need to do this with kid gloves.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 4, 2002, 10:19 PM
Post #84 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
The "oops, I should have looked" response is standard, because the mod is chastising the poor user who didn't think or know to search back to the last time _________ was discussed.
I mean... what else is that person going to say ?
What I am saying is exemplified in this thread:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=19049&forum=23&8
Surely, winter climbing in Arizona has been discussed SOMEWHERE BEFORE.
So, because the mods have seen it before, under your paradigm Adum, this thread should be moved to regional and the AZ mod should link to previous winter in AZ threads.
Instead, there is a lively discussion going on, the guy is getting good info (from TROLLS !!!!!111) and people are offering to go climbing with him.
Why can the "more experienced" users just AVOID threads which they have discussed before and let newer users have the same experience as they got ?
Better yet, why not point the new user to the old thread AND LEAVE THE NEW ONE OPEN, so the new circumstance can be discussed ?
OMG !!!111
This would let everyone participate at whatever level they prefer, without enforcing the "redundant" judgement ?
Like I say, these are not hard and fast rules, and 2 topics about the same thing at the same time could be pruned... but at least you wouldn't be SHUTTING NEWBIES DOWN becuase YOU LIKE, ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT, LIKE, LAST MONTH... you know.. before they joined the site
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 4, 2002, 10:22 PM
Post #85 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
I think someone said to make the "search" button at the top larger. I think that is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 4, 2002, 10:23 PM
Post #86 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Hehe... was that already posted ?
Can I get a mod in here to clean up the REDUNDANT POSTS ?!?!?
(I know what comes next... you don't have to say it.)
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Nov 4, 2002, 10:44 PM
Post #87 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
The first time an issue is raised, the people who have something useful to contribute often respond with long, careful, intelligent posts. Sometimes thoughtful debates ensue, links are provided to facts & research, and the thread as a whole becomes a valuable source of information. The third, fourth, fifth time the subject comes up, the original posters are not going to bother repeating themselves yet again. In a case like that, it's a shame to have the original thread buried in the index where no-one will ever see it, so why not link to it if someone brings the topic up again? If a new person has something to say on the subject, why shouldn't they add it to the original thread and make it even more valuable? It's also a shame to have annoying trollers come along and insert their worthless comments into serious threads because all that does is distract people from the subject and destroy the conversation. I don't see any problem with just deleting crap like that from the serious threads.
When it comes to Sharma's drug-use or the seventy-fifth thread on Fear of Heights, I don't think it's necessary to lock & link. People who have been around for a while are just going to ignore the thread but there will always be new people who have something to say and since there is nothing of great value in threads like those, there's not much reason to point to the old ones.
I enjoy casual interaction and for that reason spend a lot of my time here in the Community Forum. But when I do have a serious question, I appreciate being able to post it in a serious forum and get serious responses. If RC deteriorated into a meaningless, haphazard jumble of lame topics, flames, and smartass one-liners like b.com, I would stop coming here. The serious forums should be strictly moderated and people who want to kid around, flame, and talk about non-climbing stuff should click on the Community forum.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 4, 2002, 10:46 PM
Post #88 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Good thread 'headcrak'...
I agree that it should be left open, but I think it should be moved to Regional Discussions. If he is looking for a partner, it would be best in the correct Partners Forum.
There are several other topics that are much more defined and technical that may be a month old with a lotgreat BETA in them. If a user is new, and does not see that topic, and asks the same question, I think that it should be locked with a link to the original Forum, a PM is also sent to author, and these do not lambaste the newbie. This way he gets to "interact" with the old and new users. It's never too late to reply to an old topic.
Pros...
New user gets great BETA for his new post.
He can reply to discuss further.
He can get opinion already there along with those of the newer users.
Users won't have to answer the same question, especially usefull if reply is long and technical.
Keeps Forums free from redundant threads.
Cons...
I can't see any, so help me here 'headcrak'.
I've said numerous times that patience and discression needs to be used when Moderating Forums.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 4, 2002, 10:52 PM
Post #89 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
OK... Yvette said that better than I did.
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Nov 5, 2002, 4:25 AM
Post #90 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
of course she did .. she's the climbchick
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 5, 2002, 11:58 AM
Post #91 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I'm at a disadvantage, as 4 "climb chicks" are better than 1 rrrADAM.
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Nov 5, 2002, 2:43 PM
Post #92 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
.. and cody said that you were dumb ..
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 5, 2002, 6:29 PM
Post #93 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Headcrak is correct...
Unintelligently belligerent.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 5, 2002, 6:55 PM
Post #94 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Quote:jt512...good posts...
Thanks, Jody.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 5, 2002, 6:55 PM
Post #95 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Quote:
...but if you would break those loooooong posts up into several smaller posts it would pad your post count better!
I'm new here, and just getting the hang of post count padding.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 5, 2002, 6:56 PM
Post #96 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Thanks again.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Nov 5, 2002, 7:13 PM
Post #97 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
You
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Nov 5, 2002, 7:13 PM
Post #98 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
are
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Nov 5, 2002, 7:14 PM
Post #99 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
very
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Nov 5, 2002, 7:14 PM
Post #100 of 145
(6316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Nov 6, 2002, 6:43 PM
Post #101 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
*gasp*
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Nov 6, 2002, 6:43 PM
Post #102 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Nov 6, 2002, 6:43 PM
Post #103 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
cheaters !!
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Nov 6, 2002, 7:01 PM
Post #104 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
Just want to point out that old posts are not static or really archived(unless they are actually in the archive, which should just be renamed crap repository). When a post is locked and a link is given, there is nothing stopping that user or anyone else from posting in the old thread.
I think thread locking is a good thing in moderation. Linking back to truly old cobweb threads is a bad thing. However, if the topic was discussed a week or two ago and is still fresh yet not on the first page of posts i see no value whatsoever in keeping a rehash, and i think that locking and pointing out the existing thread is a service both to the website and the poster(especially if the locked thread is deleted after a few days so it doesn't keep cluttering the index up).
what do you think of that headcrak?
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 6, 2002, 7:55 PM
Post #105 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
I disagree with the current amount of thread locking and topic pointing out which occurs here.
I hear statements like yours and rrrAdams and they all run together and sound like "Bitch bitch bitch, you SHOULD post this way, I SHOULD be able to lock if this and this and this, moan moan moan."
Obviously people take issue with the amount of moderation here.
Obviously people take issue with the lack of moderation.
The difference between these two groups of people is: one group wants the REST OF EVERYONE to be conform to their vision of a utopic forum, and they will never be pleased. I mean, seriously... look at the name of this thread "Moderators, wake up." You know how many mods there are, in my mind and the minds of many here, this "waking up" is crappy.
Move topics to the proper forum if you MUST or it's APPROPRIATE, but let people talk about what they want as many times as they want... if you don't like the topic or don't want to participate, then don't. If you want to participate by pointing to an older thread, go ahead, but don't effin' LOCK and DELETE for chrissakes.
It's just text into MySQL (or whatever y'all use)... it's not going to break the bank.
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Nov 6, 2002, 8:27 PM
Post #106 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
I have to agree with Headcrack on some of his points. As a Mod in Beginners I see a lot of posts that are on the same subject that someone asked about last week or last month. The point is that the poster is usually (not always) asking a question along the lines of "What do you think of ..." or "How do you feel about ..." or "How do I ...". These people aren't interested in something that was written last week, last month or last year. If they were they could pick up many of the inexpensive books on the market and find the answer. They want to hear what people think, feel or how they do something now!
Also, as I Mod I do not Lock threads but rather move them to Archive when they have been on the Forum for a year of more with no recent responses. They are always there if someone wants to read them. On the issue of Deleting, I have deleted threads that were over a year old with NO REPSONES. These were ususally the type of "Looking for a climber in ...." Maybe it is not the approved practice but if the person hasn't found a climber in a year and nobody responded what's the deal with deleting it? It may only be text but it takes space. If we never delete anything the Archives will become so cluttered that nobody will ever check it. My experiences with SEARCH have not been all that successful (maybe it's my brain) and I am sure others have had that problem and rarely use it.
Nuff Said
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 6, 2002, 9:06 PM
Post #107 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Coach... I fully agree with your ethics.
I like your philosophy and judgement.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Nov 6, 2002, 9:09 PM
Post #108 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
Headcrak - did you even read my post? I tried to address your concerns about post locking, which I also agree is excessive. You didn't address even one thing I said.
For someone who goes on and on about critical thinking, you should try it yourself. Do you actually want a dialog about changing things, or do you just want to complain and trash adam constantly? I tried to address your concerns reasonably. I won't bother again if you respond like this.
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Nov 6, 2002, 9:20 PM
Post #109 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
Hey I want to clear something up! My nickname-flamer- has nothing to do with "flaming" on this site. This is a nickname given to me by co-workers due to large Flame tattoos that I have. When I choose this name I had no idea as to it's meaning on this site.I do not intend to be a pain in everyones ass! Maybe I should change the name so as to avoid confusion?
josh
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 7, 2002, 1:37 AM
Post #110 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Flamer... I thought it was cuz you were like,so totally gay and just OUT THERE. you know, for everyone to see...
Atg, you wrote:
Quote:I think thread locking is a good thing in moderation.
I wrote:
Quote: I disagree with the current amount of thread locking and topic pointing out which occurs here.
You wrote:
Quote:i think that locking and pointing out the existing thread is a service both to the website and the poster(especially if the locked thread is deleted after a few days so it doesn't keep cluttering the index up)
I wrote:
Quote:Move topics to the proper forum if you MUST or it's APPROPRIATE, but let people talk about what they want as many times as they want... if you don't like the topic or don't want to participate, then don't. If you want to participate by pointing to an older thread, go ahead, but don't effin' LOCK and DELETE for chrissakes.
Does this not DIRECTLY ADDRESS the points you raised ?
rhetorical.
In answer to your question, yes, I read your thread and put some thought into my response. Pity you don't see that. I suppose we could add it to the list of things we don't see eye to eye on.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Nov 7, 2002, 1:46 AM
Post #111 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
i don't think you did address them. i wasn't referring to the current situation - i was trying to find an acceptable final solution.
what is wrong with telling people to join an existing thread if it is still current(say within a week or so)? you get more interaction with people that way as the audience for the topic isn't fractured.
|
|
|
|
|
marshall84
Nov 7, 2002, 2:51 AM
Post #112 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 2842
|
A newby to the site chiming in. There have been several times that I have read a thread to get specific info, and the re-direct from a moderator has been extremely helpful. I don't necessarily need to hear from every one else about directions to j-tree or how five-tens differ from other shoes if it's already been discussed before.
A little time spent researching your topic saves everybody time. Of course then it reduces the number of chances head-crack has to flame somebody and then troll for a fight.
Relax dude.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 7, 2002, 3:52 PM
Post #113 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Atg... I have proposed a "final solution" several times:
Point people to other threads, and then keep the new thread open, in case that conversation wants to go in a different direction.
You just happened to disagree with me.
Apparently, finding a "final solution" to you means "getting what you want."
Well, guy, that's what is going to happen. Not everyone is as thoughtful a moderator as coach is. Many of the mods think that locking and then deleting "so the forum isn't cluttered" is cool.
I happen to disagree.
I would like to be able to both meet the NOOB's needs and allow for as much freedom as possible, as I think that is what increases someone's enjoyment.
I am not advocating STOPPING pointing people at threads.
I am advocating stopping with the lock and delete.
You think it "streamlines" the forum or something... and I think that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of how a forum SHOULD look. And you have yet failed to demonstrate adequately why YOUR INTERPRETATION should be upheld as the best.
I know my way might be inconvenient at times, and you might see (GASP!) 2 topics about the same thing at the same time, perhaps even in the same forum !!!!11
From where I am sitting, YOU are the one who needs to lighten up and stop trying to tell me that it is my job to come up with a compromise or convince you I am correct. That is not my job.
I wouldn't be so shitty as to try to push my vision of how a forum should look off on other people. I will merely decry the status quo, as it stifles interaction and validates moderator powertripping.
(Check out the last post in the locked thread in this very forum to see EXACTLY what I mean.)
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Nov 7, 2002, 4:53 PM
Post #114 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
I agree with headcrak.
Users need to be given the opportunity to discuss things in their own way. Forcing them to do that on an "old" thread that may already be very long is going to restrict (but certainly not eliminate) their ability to do so.
I do think threads should be moved, but there is entirely too much locking going on.
Are we going to see a policy written up concerning this?
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Nov 7, 2002, 5:08 PM
Post #115 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
Instead of pointing folks at another thread and making them wade through it, a FAQ would answer most redundant ?'s.
what cams are best-
how do you mark the middle of a rope-
what's a keeloneawton-
Etc, etc, see tradgirl for the way to destill threads to the essence.
Note for something like climbing, where very things are absolute, an FAQ should reflect that.
Murf
[ This Message was edited by: murf on 2002-11-07 09:38 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 7, 2002, 5:26 PM
Post #116 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
To murf's list...
what cams are best-
how do you mark the middle of a rope-
what's a keeloneawton-
I'd add...
How to integrate cats into your climbing-
Seasonal bolting of Double Cross-
Etc-
But, seriously, murf's right, we need a FAQ.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 7, 2002, 5:40 PM
Post #117 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Why do you need an FAQ ?!?
The point of not pointing people to old threads and locking new ones is that people get to INTERACT with the OTHER USERS on the site.
Otherwise, they could just go get a fuggin book.
It's not why they logged onto a public rockclimbign forum in the first place.
They logged on to TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE.
And FAQ would just give the mods somethign else to point the user to before locking and deleting his thread.
Please read the entire topic before posting. This has been discussed, perhaps on page 5 or 6.
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Nov 7, 2002, 6:11 PM
Post #118 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
Please read the entire website before posting. A FAQ has been discussed before. Somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 7, 2002, 6:23 PM
Post #119 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Felonius Abusive Queerbait ?
Yeah... we talk about rrrAdam all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
jhundrup
Nov 7, 2002, 6:39 PM
Post #120 of 145
(6445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2001
Posts: 410
|
One thing to consider here....is you can't please everyone. While headcrak has some good points, so does atg.
It has been recently discussed in the moderators forum that the amount of locking and deleting has got to stop. However, some locking and deleting will still take place. A classic example of this was I posted some info about a book that I had received without looking. The same post had been started the day before with several responses. Why should there be two posts on the same topic on roughly the same day? There shouldn't and mine was locked, which I later deleted and posted to the exising thread.
I do agree that the amount of locking must decrease and the deleting must decrease as well, but it won't stop all together.
You can't please everyone, there will have to be a medium and users will have to accept that.
Jared
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 7, 2002, 8:20 PM
Post #121 of 145
(6446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
I agree with that statement.
As far as deleting your own thread goes... that's a special case. If someone wantstheir thread deleted and posts to the existing thread, such as in this case... sure, delete their thread.
I think they can do this themself, though, like you did. When you do this for them, you are imposing your idea of the correct way the community should operate, and that's *a little* whack.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 7, 2002, 8:29 PM
Post #122 of 145
(6446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Where do you get "delete" from ??? We have deleted very little here, as Trevor's view is that anything (sans offensive material), no matter how old or redundant has Historical Value. We have locked many redundant threads with links to recent ones, but have not deleted them.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 7, 2002, 8:43 PM
Post #123 of 145
(6446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Lessee how about RIGHT HERE IN JHUNDRUPS POST:
Quote:There shouldn't and mine was locked, which I later deleted and posted to the exising thread.
Or maybe here, in COACH's post:
Quote:Deleting, I have deleted threads that were over a year old with NO REPSONES
While I have no problem with the circumstance surrounding these deletions, I am proving that deleting things has been discussed on this thread for about 8 pages now.
Many people and mods think that stuff should be deleted for one reason or another.
I am against that.
That's kinda like, the point of this thread.
Saying the point is moot cuz it SHOULDN'T happen is kinda stupid, seeing as we've been discussing the merits of doing versus not doing it for a little while.
|
|
|
|
|
jhundrup
Nov 7, 2002, 9:14 PM
Post #124 of 145
(6446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2001
Posts: 410
|
Let me respond....I didn't say deleting was o.k., I did say that it needed to be greatly decreased and it should be used only for pornography and excessive profanity.
I did say that some locking was o.k. and that it also needs to be decreased somewhat. The thread I spoke of was mine, and it was simply locked. I (as the poster, not as an admin) chose to delete it and as headcrak stated, this can be done by any user.
There will never be an agreement on this by everyone. There will just have to be an agreement to disagree on some things and use the site the way it is running. Yes changes can be made, but not everything can be changed to everyone's liking.
Jared
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 7, 2002, 9:33 PM
Post #125 of 145
(6446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Damn Message Board Nazis. Let's just consolidate the message board into one forum, "General".
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Nov 7, 2002, 10:22 PM
Post #126 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Quote:
How to integrate cats into your climbing-
w00t! To know my kittens is to love them... heh, I can see it now, threads titled "what do u think of kats at the krags?"
Aaanyhow... I also support a FAQ in tradgirl.com style...
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 7, 2002, 11:00 PM
Post #127 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
I walk my cat on a leash.
When it stops raining, she is headed to McKinney Falls.
Mr. Hundrup... I know what your post said, and I agree with it.
I merely used it as an example of "where I was getting this 'delete' stuff from," since rrrAdam seemed to have a problem understand the basic gist of this entire thread.
Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 7, 2002, 11:36 PM
Post #128 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I agree about not deleting Cody. Let me share something with you that I posted in the Moderators & Editors Forum a couple months ago. Tell me if you agree...
Quote:
Attn, all Mods...
Posted: 2002-08-14 01:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try to show a little patience and leeway with our users. Let's not get too picky, and try to cut our users a bit of slack.
There are several threads being locked or moved to Archives that could have remained "as is".
Not so hardfast guidelines:
Redundant thread... if original was recent, reply with link to original, then lock. If not, let it go. The search function is down, so we can't ask them to manually search each page prior to posting. There are almost 100 shoe threads on this site, and more will come.
Profanity, vulgarity, or flame in any Forum other than Community... This needs descretion, please use it. A little is OK, a little. If more than a little, PM the user politely, then prune the thread by deleting. We're not nazis. If it gets out of hand, move to Community if there is a good topic that went astray, or Archives if it's just trash.
Excessive profanity, vulgarity or offensive posts or replies in any Forum, including Community, PM author, politely, then delete/prune as needed.
Let's remember that the new users are the ones who need the most Moderating, and they don't know any better. We need to train them to post accordingly. If we beat them over the head, we'll just lose them. We were all new at sometime, and I for one posted many in the wrong Forums when I arrived. I needed to be trained.
If you have any questions, please PM me or nikegirl, as she is the most tactfull here. I have learned a lot from her, and still bounce things off of her before I act.
Or you can just post your question here. We should all be consistant and on the same page.
Our jobs will all get much easier when we switch to the new Forums (phBB2).
You all are doing a good job, and I'm putting you all in for a raise.
Thanx,
~Adam
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 8, 2002, 12:35 AM
Post #129 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Honestly...
I disagree with locking duplicate threads.
I disagree with deleting most threads.
I even think that a hidden,locked forum would be a great repository for the too obscene threads. Then, the site could make money selling a bathroom book entitiled "So you want to flame rc.com..."
I think that moving threads and pruning out pornography is cool.
Other than that, let people talk.
Oh, and don't try to "train" new users. Move threads if you must, but don't think everyone who joins is as stupid as you... most people will lurk for a bit toget a feel of what's right. If they don't, you can generally tell.
Switch to the phpbb2. It rocks.
Other than that, good post. Looks like you were trying to cover your ass while that doosh character pushed your modability to the limit...
He was wonderful.
I think that covers it, except for this: I never attacked your stance on deleteing stuff. To a point, I agree with it. I have spent a few years on various messageboards, and I have seen all levels of moderation. I feel that an online community should feel comfortable to it's members, and based on my own experience, I have a pretty well thought out philosophy on what makes people invest themselves in a group of peeps they only interact with over the computer. Key word: INTERACT.
I didn't attack you about your stance on deleting, I attacked the fact that you asked "why are y'all discussing deleting, Trevor doesn't like deleting." Regardless of the head honcho (I reserve The Boss for Mr. Springsteen and a belgian friend of mine...) opinion on banning, that subject has been discussed for 7 or 8 pages here. The fact that you cannot see that enough troubles me. the fact that you can't see that and choose to ask why we are talking about hte thread topic troubles me more.
And the kicker is, when I told you WHY the point wasn't moot, you responded not by agreeing that deleting was worth addressing... you responded as if I had ATTACKED your stance on the subject.
I like a lively discussion as much as the next guy, but I wish that you would at least try to maintain some shred of coherency through your contentions.
I feel mired enough trying to explain to everyone who asks me to "compromise" my deep-seated philosophy that I feel this way within myself based on my experience, and their vision of a utopic forum is just THEIR vision and a little selfish and they shouldn't impose their vision of trained noobs on other people...
I feel mired enough in that matter to want to deal with your wildly divergent inanity.
I feel like being really condecending right now, but I will spare you the "if you can't run with the big dogs" post. I'd just really appreciate it if you could internalize what I say enough to compare and contrast it to your own philosophy and note the difference on your own. I would also appreciate if you don't take everything I say as a personal attack.
I think I am overt enough about THAT already.
Jesus I type fast.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 8, 2002, 12:50 AM
Post #130 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Cody,
I didn't take anything you said as an attack on me, please reread my above post, as I don't see how you think I posted as a rebutle to an attack.
I posted that to show my stance, as it appears to be very similar to what you have been saying for 7 or 8 pages. Well, less the "attacks on me" in those 7 or 8 pages.
|
|
|
|
|
josher
Nov 8, 2002, 1:09 AM
Post #131 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2002
Posts: 295
|
Just curious.. This site have "rules"? and where can they be found?? (i assume there is something other then the FAQ page. If thoses are the rules, i see mod's breaking them (ie. profanity) all the time. Good for the goose...
[edited for spleling ([ This Message was edited by: josher on 2002-11-07 17:12 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 8, 2002, 5:32 AM
Post #132 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
rrrAdam... you posted this:
Quote:I posted that to show my stance, as it appears to be very similar to what you have been saying for 7 or 8 pages.
You are "shoeing your stance" or whatever,
The fact of the matter is, that stance does not agree with what I have been saying post after post.
So, WONDERFUL.. you want to SHOW YOUR STANCE.
Why not, instead of asking ME what I think of YOUR STANCE, just post your stance and demonstrate how it is either similar or different from MY stance, which I have posted numerous times to this thread.
Suer you posted what you think... you copied something old and asked me what I think.
I think (pay attention) that you could read my posts, discern my poisition and then either disagree or agree and post reasons why.
Instead, I have to deal now with you getting uppity because our "stances" kinda match and that was the point you are trying to make.
Whooopee for you, man... you kinda agree with me.
If that is truly the case, you could write: I AGREE WITH HEADCRAK, HE IS A SMART BASTARD.
Instead of: Headcrak, here is a post from many months ago, do you agree with it ?
Any idiot with half a brain can figure out where I stand on this issue, as I have said it AT LEAST a few times.
my main point was: while we kinda agree on shit, our viewpoints differ signifigantly.
Since you can't see that, or choose not to address it, I will assume you concede those points to me.
Thanks... I agree now with not only rrrAdum, but jhundrup. Where does that leave me ?
Above all your petty bullshit.
goodnight.
|
|
|
|
|
djmicro
Nov 8, 2002, 5:48 AM
Post #133 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 73
|
Rock on rrrAdam.
Why can you not understand the reason for having moderators in the first place, headcrak?
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 8, 2002, 6:16 AM
Post #134 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Like I say.
(jesus f---ing f--- s--- dumbass bullshit OMFG.)
Moderators should move threads, prune porn and work for the overall good of the entire community...
They should not work towards creating the perfect forum by forcing people to post topics in the manner they choose or training people to post how they want.
My viewpoint is adequately expressed in many posts... why can you not see that, chuffwit?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 8, 2002, 11:16 AM
Post #135 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Quote:
headcrak wrote:
Moderators should move threads, prune porn and work for the overall good of the entire community...
I think I was saying this all along... You couldn't "get that" out of what I posted ???
Oh well, in referrence to the above quote...
I AGREE WITH HEADCRACK, HE IS A SMART BASTARD !!!
It's apparent that you only wish to split hairs with me and attack me regardless of what I say, as evidenced in all your replies to me. So I think it's prudent for me to remove my end of the fuel for the fire, as you and I cannot hold a reasonable and logical debate, as we seem to TROLL each other... And that is counter productive.
[ This Message was edited by: rrradam on 2002-11-08 03:31 ]
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Nov 8, 2002, 2:06 PM
Post #136 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Quote:If thoses are the rules, i see mod's breaking them (ie. profanity) all the time.
Your rite Josher, we have tried to kick adam out of here before... his smoking mixed with his climbing ethic, geesh.
|
|
|
|
|
gawd
Nov 8, 2002, 4:30 PM
Post #137 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 193
|
ANDY,
DONT FORGET VIOLATING A PERSONS PRIVACY AND THEN ILLEGALLY USING THE INFORMATION TO GAIN ACCESS TO HIS EMAIL AND OTHER PERSONAL ACCOUNTS.......
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Nov 8, 2002, 4:35 PM
Post #138 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
I think I was saying this all along... You couldn't "get that" out of what I posted ???
You didn't say the same thing I said.
The post you quoted of yourself says something TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
You are looking for corrolation where it doesn't exist.
And I already explained how our two viewpoints don't match up, I am not going to do it again because you are a drooling idiot.
I also explained why I thought it was stupid that you questioned the subject we've been discussing for 9 pages. Since you didn't refute that, I will assume you concede it.
That plus the fact that you agree with me makes me slightly happy.
Which is the first time in our interaction I can say that about you. Thanks, dickhead.
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Nov 8, 2002, 5:04 PM
Post #139 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
" .. this is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on, my friend .. "
|
|
|
|
|
polarwid
Nov 8, 2002, 6:01 PM
Post #140 of 145
(7702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2001
Posts: 3608
|
Some people started singing it and...
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Nov 8, 2002, 6:57 PM
Post #141 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
ah how i love 10 page flame wars between people who are essentially in agreement... aren't semantics great?
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Nov 8, 2002, 7:10 PM
Post #142 of 145
(7700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Somebody pleeeeeze lock this thread, or remove it. It's just a whirlwind of crap spining round and round. And, oh, look, GAWD's back. How pleasant!
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jun 4, 2007, 4:33 AM
Post #143 of 145
(2566 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
Spammer:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?username=dshowgina;
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Jun 4, 2007, 4:51 AM
Post #144 of 145
(2557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
stymingersfink wrote: Spammer: http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?username=dshowgina;
Bleh. Beat me to it.
|
|
|
|
|
ddt
Jun 4, 2007, 3:03 PM
Post #145 of 145
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
|
Nice thread resurrection!
I've dismantled the spammer's account.
DDT
|
|
|
|
|
|
