|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 6, 2013, 12:12 AM
Post #1 of 22
(8875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
jt512 wrote: Jeff wrote: I'll be PM'ing a few of you shortly with more explanation of why I hid your posts. [Edit: As I pm'd those of you whose posts I hid, I'm *not* making a sitewide policy that threads can't get derailed, just I'd appreciate if we keep this particular thread on-topic for two reasons: 1) I want to make sure I hear from a wide variety of users, not just the vocal ones, and tons of o/t posts starts to make a thread feel like it's insiders only, and 2) I'm trying to come up to speed as fast as possible and make sure I read all these posts and think about them and a long stream of off-topic discussion just adds more cycles that slows me down, which slows down how fast I can make changes to move this site forward. If you want to just chit-chat, there's plenty of other threads for that.] Jeff OK, but but first impressions are important. DDT made some heavy-handed moves when he took over, and essentially lost the race right out of the starting gate. Most of really don't like to be told what to say or how to say it.
Color me crazy, JT, but posting contents of a PM from the new owner doesn't exactly support your argument re: first impressions.
Which might be why so many are lobbying for you to be first on the chopping block.
I mean, seriously? You thought posting that was a *good* idea?
EDIT BY EPOCH: I detached these posts from Jeff's AMA thread. This does not contribute to the conversation or topic that was presented in that thread. Please keep future replies on your banter in here... A note regarding this is also posted in Jeff's welcome thread.
(This post was edited by epoch on Nov 6, 2013, 3:48 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Nov 6, 2013, 12:15 AM
Post #2 of 22
(8870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
In reply to: Color me crazy, JT, but posting contents of a PM from....
That wasn't from a PM - it was from a post within this thread.
As for editing out the references to the old logo looking like labia(which would be more accurate, and also may explain why so many guys insist they know where a woman's g-spot is....), perhaps it was a bit of a sharp cut, but I guess I would rather see that that the way the Supertopo forum went a few months ago with the "boobs thread," in which the site owner only took action when a major gear company pulled their advertising on account of it.
(This post was edited by happiegrrrl on Nov 6, 2013, 12:23 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Nov 6, 2013, 12:24 AM
Post #3 of 22
(8855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Of course, to be fair, my post above should also get the chop.....
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 6, 2013, 12:48 AM
Post #4 of 22
(8833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
happiegrrrl wrote: In reply to: Color me crazy, JT, but posting contents of a PM from.... That wasn't from a PM - it was from a post within this thread. As for editing out the references to the old logo looking like labia(which would be more accurate, and also may explain why so many guys insist they know where a woman's g-spot is....), perhaps it was a bit of a sharp cut, but I guess I would rather see that that the way the Supertopo forum went a few months ago with the "boobs thread," in which the site owner only took action when a major gear company pulled their advertising on account of it.
Ah. Well, apologies to JT then. Didn't see that in-thread and assumed it was part of a similarly worded cut&paste PM I saw from someone else.
That said, doesn't change the fact that the only one who has something to lose in this is JT, so not quite understanding the angle he's playing with the new owner, who could axe him at any time without thought. (an action I'd be in favor of, BTW).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 6, 2013, 12:53 AM
Post #5 of 22
(8827 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: Jeff wrote: I'll be PM'ing a few of you shortly with more explanation of why I hid your posts. [Edit: As I pm'd those of you whose posts I hid, I'm *not* making a sitewide policy that threads can't get derailed, just I'd appreciate if we keep this particular thread on-topic for two reasons: 1) I want to make sure I hear from a wide variety of users, not just the vocal ones, and tons of o/t posts starts to make a thread feel like it's insiders only, and 2) I'm trying to come up to speed as fast as possible and make sure I read all these posts and think about them and a long stream of off-topic discussion just adds more cycles that slows me down, which slows down how fast I can make changes to move this site forward. If you want to just chit-chat, there's plenty of other threads for that.] Jeff OK, but but first impressions are important. DDT made some heavy-handed moves when he took over, and essentially lost the race right out of the starting gate. Most of really don't like to be told what to say or how to say it. Color me crazy, JT, but posting contents of a PM from the new owner doesn't exactly support your argument re: first impressions.
OK, Aric, consider yourself colored crazy. Those comments of Jeff's were not contents of a P.M, but contents of a post he made in this thread.
In reply to: Which might be why so many are lobbying for you to be first on the chopping block.
I suspect it's more because people get offended when they try to make me look bad in public, but just embarrass themselves in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 6, 2013, 12:54 AM
Post #6 of 22
(8823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: happiegrrrl wrote: In reply to: Color me crazy, JT, but posting contents of a PM from.... That wasn't from a PM - it was from a post within this thread. As for editing out the references to the old logo looking like labia(which would be more accurate, and also may explain why so many guys insist they know where a woman's g-spot is....), perhaps it was a bit of a sharp cut, but I guess I would rather see that that the way the Supertopo forum went a few months ago with the "boobs thread," in which the site owner only took action when a major gear company pulled their advertising on account of it. Ah. Well, apologies to JT then. Didn't see that in-thread and assumed it was part of a similarly worded cut&paste PM I saw from someone else. That said, doesn't change the fact that the only one who has something to lose in this is JT, so not quite understanding the angle he's playing with the new owner, who could axe him at any time without thought. (an action I'd be in favor of, BTW).
A not-pology. Classy.
I'm not playing any angles with Jeff. I'm just giving him customer feedback, which hopefully he'll listen to.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Nov 6, 2013, 12:58 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 6, 2013, 1:01 AM
Post #7 of 22
(8790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: Jeff wrote: I'll be PM'ing a few of you shortly with more explanation of why I hid your posts. [Edit: As I pm'd those of you whose posts I hid, I'm *not* making a sitewide policy that threads can't get derailed, just I'd appreciate if we keep this particular thread on-topic for two reasons: 1) I want to make sure I hear from a wide variety of users, not just the vocal ones, and tons of o/t posts starts to make a thread feel like it's insiders only, and 2) I'm trying to come up to speed as fast as possible and make sure I read all these posts and think about them and a long stream of off-topic discussion just adds more cycles that slows me down, which slows down how fast I can make changes to move this site forward. If you want to just chit-chat, there's plenty of other threads for that.] Jeff OK, but but first impressions are important. DDT made some heavy-handed moves when he took over, and essentially lost the race right out of the starting gate. Most of really don't like to be told what to say or how to say it. Color me crazy, JT, but posting contents of a PM from the new owner doesn't exactly support your argument re: first impressions. OK, Aric, consider yourself colored crazy. Those comments of Jeff's were not contents of a P.M, but contents of a post he made in this thread. In reply to: Which might be why so many are lobbying for you to be first on the chopping block. I suspect it's more because people get offended when they try to make me look bad in public, but just embarrass themselves in the process.
Here's some more rope, JT. Please use it. Remember, unlike you, I have nothing to lose here, and something to offer.
To bring this back around, doing something about the rampant use of blockquote would be nice. It's habit here due to the fact that everything can be edited long after the fact, but makes threads unnecessarily long and hard to read. In fact, I kinda recall something years ago about Sungam trying to see how many nested quotes were required to crash the server. And succeeding.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 6, 2013, 1:57 AM
Post #8 of 22
(8682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
happiegrrrl wrote: Of course, to be fair, my post above should also get the chop.....
If it gets the chop, it will bode ominously for the site; if it starts a 10-page argument about the g-spot, we'll know we've got the old site back. Anything in between: more evidence need to come to a conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Nov 6, 2013, 2:20 AM
Post #10 of 22
(8758 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: Jeff wrote: I'll be PM'ing a few of you shortly with more explanation of why I hid your posts. [Edit: As I pm'd those of you whose posts I hid, I'm *not* making a sitewide policy that threads can't get derailed, just I'd appreciate if we keep this particular thread on-topic for two reasons: 1) I want to make sure I hear from a wide variety of users, not just the vocal ones, and tons of o/t posts starts to make a thread feel like it's insiders only, and 2) I'm trying to come up to speed as fast as possible and make sure I read all these posts and think about them and a long stream of off-topic discussion just adds more cycles that slows me down, which slows down how fast I can make changes to move this site forward. If you want to just chit-chat, there's plenty of other threads for that.] Jeff OK, but but first impressions are important. DDT made some heavy-handed moves when he took over, and essentially lost the race right out of the starting gate. Most of really don't like to be told what to say or how to say it. Color me crazy, JT, but posting contents of a PM from the new owner doesn't exactly support your argument re: first impressions. OK, Aric, consider yourself colored crazy. Those comments of Jeff's were not contents of a P.M, but contents of a post he made in this thread. In reply to: Which might be why so many are lobbying for you to be first on the chopping block. I suspect it's more because people get offended when they try to make me look bad in public, but just embarrass themselves in the process. Here's some more rope, JT. Please use it. Remember, unlike you, I have nothing to lose here, and something to offer. To bring this back around, doing something about the rampant use of blockquote would be nice. It's habit here due to the fact that everything can be edited long after the fact, but makes threads unnecessarily long and hard to read. In fact, I kinda recall something years ago about Sungam trying to see how many nested quotes were required to crash the server. And succeeding.
I can't decide whether to compare you to a broken record or a ten year old.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 6, 2013, 2:35 AM
Post #11 of 22
(8728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: To bring this back around, doing something about the rampant use of blockquote would be nice. It's habit here due to the fact that everything can be edited long after the fact, but makes threads unnecessarily long and hard to read.
I disagreemostly. The forums have always been this site's strength. And one reason for that is that nested blockquotes are easy to use. Nested blockquotes are necessary to keep track of the train of thought in an on-line conversation. They are essential for meaningful online conversations. MP.com lacks this feature, and until they implement it (which I've urged them to), it will continue to be next to impossible to have an in-depth conversation there.
There has been a disturbing trend in forum software toward making it harder to include nested quotes or even multiple non-nested quotes in a post. One common software platform allows multiple quoting, by going back through the thread and individually clicking on the posts to be quoted, but (1) the mechanism is cumbersome, and so it is rarely used, and (2) even when it is used, the quoted posts are not nested or necessarily posted in the correct order, which makes it less useful for following the discussion.
On forums with no or limited nested quoting, conversations frequently become derailed by accusations of people not following the train of thought or taking comments out of context. But you can't blame people for losing the train of thought or taking comments out of context, if they have to read through pages of posts in an attempt to figure out what the train of thought or the context actually is.
In reply to: In fact, I kinda recall something years ago about Sungam trying to see how many nested quotes were required to crash the server. And succeeding.
No, I don't think he was trying to, or did in fact, crash the server. In fact I don't think his prank caused any long-term, or even short-term trouble for the website. Since this website's niche has always been in-depth discussion about climbing, it would be far better to put up with the occasional prankster than to eliminate the very mechanism that allows for in-depth discussion to take place.
That said, there could, perhaps, be a default limit of three or four levels of nesting imposed by the software, with the option of the poster overriding the default if he or she felt more levels of nesting were required for clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Nov 6, 2013, 3:39 AM
Post #12 of 22
(8641 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
"On forums with no or limited nested quoting, conversations frequently become derailed by accusations of people not following the train of thought or taking comments out of context."
The only thing I didn't care about the quote function was that anyone could alter what was said inside of any quote.
Even the author themselves should not be able to change a quote.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 6, 2013, 3:48 AM
Post #13 of 22
(8626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
moose_droppings wrote: "On forums with no or limited nested quoting, conversations frequently become derailed by accusations of people not following the train of thought or taking comments out of context." The only thing I didn't care about the quote function was that anyone could alter what was said inside of any quote. Even the author themselves should not be able to change a quote.
We actually had a rule, instituted at my insistence, that intentionally misquoting a user was a bannable offence.
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Nov 6, 2013, 4:04 AM
Post #14 of 22
(8612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
I detached these posts from Jeff's AMA thread. This does not contribute to the conversation or topic that was presented in that thread. Please keep future replies on in here... A note regarding this is also posted in Jeff's welcome thread. Let's keep that one as intended, please.
I hid several posts in that thread from general view. Jeff can see them as well as the moderators. If Jeff desires, he is more than welcome to place them back as visible. If you want to continue your conversation, otherwise, please do so in here. I realize I went heavy-handed and did so intentionally.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 6, 2013, 4:30 AM
Post #15 of 22
(8596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
jt512 wrote: We actually had a rule, instituted at my insistence, that intentionally misquoting a user was a bannable offence.
We also had a rule, at your insistence, that fake accounts that were easily mistaken for other users (e.g. jt5I2) were to be banned on sight. Which IIRC is something you at one point were calling for my head for due to banning such an account after consulting with other mods on the subject. Shortly afterwards I tendered my resignation, and DDT announced I had been terminated as a Mod.
(sorry Epoch, the irony of that was too much to resist.)
(This post was edited by adatesman on Nov 6, 2013, 4:34 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 6, 2013, 5:07 AM
Post #16 of 22
(8565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: We actually had a rule, instituted at my insistence, that intentionally misquoting a user was a bannable offence. We also had a rule, at your insistence, that fake accounts that were easily mistaken for other users (e.g. jt5I2) were to be banned on sight. Which IIRC is something you at one point were calling for my head for due to banning such an account after consulting with other mods on the subject. Shortly afterwards I tendered my resignation, and DDT announced I had been terminated as a Mod.
Obviously, DDT was capable of sorting the wheat out from the chaff.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Nov 6, 2013, 3:17 PM
Post #17 of 22
(8468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
One of the things that makes this site vibrant are the off-color, occasionally insulting, and often scathing comments from jt512 and similar folks. These rise above the "shut the fuck up you <homophobic slur>" and are far more entertaining. And so often, he writes what a lot of us are secretly thinking.
Advocating for the removal of jt512 shows a pretty thin skin for internet version of barroom slagging.
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Nov 6, 2013, 4:53 PM
Post #18 of 22
(8421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
epoch wrote: I hid several posts in that thread from general view. Jeff can see them as well as the moderators. If Jeff desires, he is more than welcome to place them back as visible. If you want to continue your conversation, otherwise, please do so in here. I realize I went heavy-handed and did so intentionally.
It's what you do.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Nov 6, 2013, 6:54 PM
Post #19 of 22
(8361 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
marc801 wrote: One of the things that makes this site vibrant are the off-color, occasionally insulting, and often scathing comments from jt512 and similar folks. These rise above the "shut the fuck up you <homophobic slur>" and are far more entertaining. And so often, he writes what a lot of us are secretly thinking. Advocating for the removal of jt512 shows a pretty thin skin for internet version of barroom slagging.
Yup, jt512 brought a substantial portion of intellect to the more usual rubbish, that he was almost always right makes him easy to hate. My favorite poster for sure and no.2 on my list of RC.com people IŽd spend a day climbing and an evening drinking with.
He might of course be an obnoxious, teetotal hill walker in real life!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 6, 2013, 6:59 PM
Post #20 of 22
(8358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
JimTitt wrote: marc801 wrote: One of the things that makes this site vibrant are the off-color, occasionally insulting, and often scathing comments from jt512 and similar folks. These rise above the "shut the fuck up you <homophobic slur>" and are far more entertaining. And so often, he writes what a lot of us are secretly thinking. Advocating for the removal of jt512 shows a pretty thin skin for internet version of barroom slagging. Yup, jt512 brought a substantial portion of intellect to the more usual rubbish, that he was almost always right makes him easy to hate. My favorite poster for sure and no.2 on my list of RC.com people IŽd spend a day climbing and an evening drinking with. He might of course be an obnoxious, teetotal hill walker in real life!
Having climbed with him several times, I can assure you he's a margarita guzzling bolt-clipper.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Nov 6, 2013, 8:56 PM
Post #21 of 22
(8290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
marc801 wrote: Advocating for the removal of jt512 shows a pretty thin skin for internet version of barroom slagging.
Agreed. I was familiar with Jay from rec.climbing, and found he was one of many who moved here once I did the same. He knows his shit and is sometimes harsh in his delivery, but climbing is unforgiving. I'd rather an experienced climber school someone rather than have bad practices get reinforced. He's not one to walk away from an argument, but it takes two (or more) folks to sustain one.
Adatesman, with his calls for Jay's head and protests about past treatment, has an ironically similar inability to let go.
(This post was edited by markc on Nov 6, 2013, 8:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Nov 7, 2013, 3:13 AM
Post #22 of 22
(8204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
jt512 wrote: happiegrrrl wrote: Of course, to be fair, my post above should also get the chop..... If it gets the chop, it will bode ominously for the site; if it starts a 10-page argument about the g-spot, we'll know we've got the old site back. Anything in between: more evidence need to come to a conclusion.
Most male climbers don't care about the g-spot. Heck, most probably don't know it exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
