|
airscape
Aug 16, 2010, 3:46 PM
Post #102 of 157
(6490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240
|
It seems to me also a lot of work for nothing.
As a user, would you seriously go into each of those multitudes of POST DELETED threads and read some random PDF file hoping it contains some relevant info?
I don't see a way of cataloging the saved posts in a legible format that would make it worthwhile to read them.
Post upon post upon post in a pdf does not make good reading.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 16, 2010, 4:02 PM
Post #103 of 157
(6472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
airscape wrote: It seems to me also a lot of work for nothing. As a user, would you seriously go into each of those multitudes of POST DELETED threads and read some random PDF file hoping it contains some relevant info? I don't see a way of cataloging the saved posts in a legible format that would make it worthwhile to read them. Post upon post upon post in a pdf does not make good reading.
I don't disagree with you there; I just don't see how this is malicious.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 16, 2010, 4:06 PM
Post #104 of 157
(6466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
"dingus wrote: I don't believe his altruistic motives. Flat out do not believe him. Its just plain ole theft. DMT
You are wrong Dingus.
I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional. I had hoped, and still do hope, that some changes in how content is managed on this site may result from this whole blowup.
I have said for a long time now that the ability to delete large amounts of content should not be in the control of the posters. Fortunately the times when that actually happens seem to be very rare but now that it has, one of my aims is to draw enough attention to the issue that a change may be seriously considered.
It's messy, and only a part of why I have acted as I have, but it may still have an effective. We will see.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 16, 2010, 4:06 PM
Post #105 of 157
(6464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Some of you may disagree with what I am doing but I assure you my motives are not theft, nor malice. And since some have dramatically misconstrued my intentions and just so there is no ambiguity, the reasons why I am pressing this issue are as follows.
1) Archive integrity. I think it is of value to the users and the site.
2) We all have an ethical obligation to uphold our end of the social contract we all signed when we decided to contribute to a site formatted like RC.com. One persons post necessarily relies on another for both context and meaning.
3) There may be public safety implications if the deleted posts contain information concerning rigging, gear failure/limitations, accident analysis, etc...
What I hope to achieve is…
1) A measure of archive integrity.
2) To make sure people have an opportunity to learn from and be safer climbers though access to the threads and resources on this site.
3) And most importantly. If not instigate, at least encourage a change in how user content is managed on this site. I agree with jt512 in that a person should have a limited window in which to edit their posts, after which they become a permanent part of the archive.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 16, 2010, 4:22 PM
Post #106 of 157
(6449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
airscape wrote: It seems to me also a lot of work for nothing. As a user, would you seriously go into each of those multitudes of POST DELETED threads and read some random PDF file hoping it contains some relevant info? I don't see a way of cataloging the saved posts in a legible format that would make it worthwhile to read them. Post upon post upon post in a pdf does not make good reading.
It is messy but I thought it was important to append the PDF's to the end of the original threads first. I am considering creating a "master list" later on that will be clearly labeled and all in one thread. It's nowhere close to the original threads but it's the best I can do with what I am working with.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 16, 2010, 4:30 PM
Post #107 of 157
(6438 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
rrrADAM wrote: When we act while under the influence of emotion, it's good to ask ourselves: Is this going to hurt who we want to hurt, or get us what we want? Or, is there going to be a lot of collateral damage to people who don't deserve it? Often times... Doing the right thing is HARD.
This whole situation sucks, and all the more because I like Aric, or at least what I know of his online personality.
Some will choose not to believe me on this but I would much rather things had not gone the way they have.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 16, 2010, 4:31 PM
Post #108 of 157
(6435 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.
See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 16, 2010, 4:53 PM
Post #109 of 157
(6416 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT
Technically, the text background on this website is more a light blue or grey.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 16, 2010, 5:04 PM
Post #110 of 157
(6407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT
The definition of malice is something that is done with intent to harm. It means deliberately evil.
The definition of controversy is that there is a dispute or disagreement, usually a difference of opinion where one's opinion goes against the grain of common understanding.
The two do NOT necessarily go hand in hand. You have be a dumbass to think that's so.
So again, explain why you think this is malice.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 16, 2010, 5:20 PM
Post #111 of 157
(6395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT The definition of malice is something that is done with intent to harm.
He has certainly deprived Adatesman control over his own content. This person is a site user, not management. This is equivalent to me saying you can't drive away in your car, because its parked in a public parking lot.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 16, 2010, 5:36 PM
Post #112 of 157
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
There are certainly a lot of strong opinions here, eh? The problem is that there are very valid arguments on both sides--and the issue is NOT (as formerly put) black and white.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 16, 2010, 5:37 PM
Post #113 of 157
(6377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
dingus wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT The definition of malice is something that is done with intent to harm. He has certainly deprived Adatesman control over his own content. This person is a site user, not management. This is equivalent to me saying you can't drive away in your car, because its parked in a public parking lot. DMT
I might also add that his block quoting of this thread is in direct violation of the license under which I submitted the material. Thanks to SittingDuck for the suggestion to license it; I never thought it ever be an issue that could possibly come up.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 16, 2010, 5:39 PM
Post #114 of 157
(6375 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
dingus wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT The definition of malice is something that is done with intent to harm. He has certainly deprived Adatesman control over his own content. This person is a site user, not management. This is equivalent to me saying you can't drive away in your car, because its parked in a public parking lot. DMT
But he hasn't done so maliciously. When I think of that word I think of a bad person, someone who does things because they aren't a good person, because they want to see someone get intentionally hurt. He may be depriving Aric of something, but he isn't doing it maliciously. He isn't doing it with the intent of hurting Aric (or anyone really). In fact, he seems to be doing it to help people, albeit what appears to be a silent group (there ya go, there's your controversy!).
You see Dingus, sometimes people do things regardless of what the vocal majority wants them to do.
Look, I think he got thrown under the bus, too. I agree, I think he was treated rather unfairly. I don't think he's completely without fault, mind you, but I think all of this is really unfortunate. However, he did produce what many think are important discussions and that the community at large benefited from those discussions. I personally think it's a good thing to allow the community to continue to access that good work. Obviously, others disagree, but again, that's not malice.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 16, 2010, 5:59 PM
Post #115 of 157
(6352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: dingus wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT The definition of malice is something that is done with intent to harm. He has certainly deprived Adatesman control over his own content. This person is a site user, not management. This is equivalent to me saying you can't drive away in your car, because its parked in a public parking lot. DMT I might also add that his block quoting of this thread is in direct violation of the license under which I submitted the material. Thanks to SittingDuck for the suggestion to license it; I never thought it ever be an issue that could possibly come up.
The link that sittingduck posted actually goes to a site that allows you to lessen your normal copyright rights. It allows you to choose limited or no future rights. The default position is "all rights reserved," but as previously stated, even that position is not absolute under Fair Use doctrine, etc...
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 16, 2010, 6:05 PM
Post #117 of 157
(6337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 16, 2010, 6:10 PM
Post #118 of 157
(6335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: dingus wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT The definition of malice is something that is done with intent to harm. He has certainly deprived Adatesman control over his own content. This person is a site user, not management. This is equivalent to me saying you can't drive away in your car, because its parked in a public parking lot. DMT I might also add that his block quoting of this thread is in direct violation of the license under which I submitted the material. Thanks to SittingDuck for the suggestion to license it; I never thought it ever be an issue that could possibly come up. The link that sittingduck posted actually goes to a site that allows you to lessen your normal copyright rights. It allows you to choose limited or no future rights. The default position is "all rights reserved," but as previously stated, even that position is not absolute under Fair Use doctrine, etc... Curt I suggest you read the terms of the license which I used, which is not the one SittingDuck linked. What NA did is very much in violation of the license.
Would you mind directing me to where I can read it?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 16, 2010, 6:14 PM
Post #119 of 157
(6327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 16, 2010, 6:20 PM
Post #120 of 157
(6321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: Would you mind directing me to where I can read it? Curt I'd suggest the OP in the thread, since that's where it was. NA seems to have missed that part of it though, so I'm afraid you might be out of luck.
In that case, it's pretty difficult to independently verify this statement:
adatesman wrote: ...What NA did is very much in violation of the license.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 16, 2010, 6:24 PM
Post #121 of 157
(6318 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 16, 2010, 6:25 PM
Post #122 of 157
(6315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT
I trust that the majority here are intelligent enough to work out a fair and accurate interpretation of what I have said, as opposed to the spin you are trying to put on it.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 16, 2010, 6:30 PM
Post #123 of 157
(6302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: dingus wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: dingus wrote: notapplicable wrote: I am fully aware that many will consider me an ass for approaching this from the angle that I have but the controversy is intentional.See you all? I told you it was malicious. There it is in black and white. DMT The definition of malice is something that is done with intent to harm. He has certainly deprived Adatesman control over his own content. This person is a site user, not management. This is equivalent to me saying you can't drive away in your car, because its parked in a public parking lot. DMT But he hasn't done so maliciously. When I think of that word I think of a bad person, someone who does things because they aren't a good person, because they want to see someone get intentionally hurt. He may be depriving Aric of something, but he isn't doing it maliciously. He isn't doing it with the intent of hurting Aric (or anyone really). In fact, he seems to be doing it to help people, albeit what appears to be a silent group (there ya go, there's your controversy!). You see Dingus, sometimes people do things regardless of what the vocal majority wants them to do. Look, I think he got thrown under the bus, too. I agree, I think he was treated rather unfairly. I don't think he's completely without fault, mind you, but I think all of this is really unfortunate. However, he did produce what many think are important discussions and that the community at large benefited from those discussions. I personally think it's a good thing to allow the community to continue to access that good work. Obviously, others disagree, but again, that's not malice.
Thank you Greg and you are correct, quite a few have PM'd me in support of what I've done, even more in support of my reasons for doing it.
Many, many more than have spoken up agree that content, once posted, should not be deletable.
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Aug 16, 2010, 7:06 PM
Post #124 of 157
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
I'd take a side, but personally I think that who's right in this matters way less than making sure rc.com is a place people want to come, ask questions, form friendships, and learn to become better and safer climbers. I think this whole issue has the potential to drive apart the people who make it valuable. so yeah, tread lightly guys and gals. this isn't life and death.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 16, 2010, 7:08 PM
Post #125 of 157
(6741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: Would you mind directing me to where I can read it? Curt I'd suggest the OP in the thread, since that's where it was. NA seems to have missed that part of it though, so I'm afraid you might be out of luck. In that case, it's pretty difficult to independently verify this statement: adatesman wrote: ...What NA did is very much in violation of the license. Curt I don't need you to verify it, as I know for a fact it is the case...
Based on your extremely poor understanding of the law, you probably have no idea what you're talking about.
adatesman wrote: ...Your opinion on the matter is neither needed nor wanted...
Perhaps not by you, but that's just too bad. I'll continue to comment on anything here that interests me.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lab.jpg
