|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Aug 18, 2003, 7:24 PM
Post #1 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
Stu Hammett - theooze - has told me that he has been banned from RC.com. Not only is Stu unable to post, but he is unable to even read posts on RC.com. He's been "locked out", he tells me.
Please note that I am not fully familiar with the story, and all the reasons for RC.com's decisions, but I'd like to know and understand for two reasons.
The first reason is I want to know is so it doesn't happen to me, or anyone else I care for! I would like RC.com to please answer:
[*:317568b295]Why and how did this banning happen?
[*:317568b295]What is the mechanism is for banning someone?
[*:317568b295]Who makes the decision to ban, and how?
[*:317568b295]If there is indeed an Official RC.com Banning Procedure, was it followed fairly in Stu's case?
[*:317568b295]If there is, can you please publish it to share it with us?
[*:317568b295]If there isn't, shouldn't we make one, and pretty darn fast?
[*:317568b295]What is Stu's appeal process?
The second reason is that Stu is my friend.
Is this a huge injustice to Stu, or did RC.com rid itself of a deserving undesirable?
I would ask you to please click here to read Stu's side of the story. I would love to copy and paste it into this post, but will not do so without RC.com's OK. Is this OK to do?
Note that I am hardly an unbiased reporter! When you read the link above, you will see that Stu's ban was made by rrradam, and as you well know, there is "no love lost" between Adam and me.
To me, based on what I have read [a few emails from Stu and Adam, the link above, and some other stuff on RC.com], Stu's banning appears to be grossly unfair! Now that's my take, but that's just me.
It is hard for me to be objective here. I feel angered and embittered. I also feel afraid that such power can be weilded in [what appears to me to be] such an arbitrary manner.
If RC.com can do this unfairly to Stu, who's next? They don't like me very much. Maybe they'll ban YOU. I believe some admins use their power unfairly at times, and I believe this could be one of those times.
But I could be wrong. I would like RC.com to explain.
NOTE:
I want to hear not only from rrradam, but most especially I want to hear from Trevor, who is the owner of RC.com, and Russman and Tim, who are the other Top Dogs.
Is Trevor even around? Is he aware of this? I just checked his profile, and his last visit was August 15. Is the owner of the website aware that Stu has been banned?
In the meantime, I would ask RC.com to partially lift its ban on Stu, and at least allow him to READ what's going on, even if it does not permit him to post.
If you are reading this post and think, "There goes Pete stirring the pot again," then you are only partially right. Banning someone is serious business, and it needs to be taken seriously.
For the most part, RC.com seems to act in a professional matter, but there are other times when they act unfairly and stupidly, and there are other times still when they simply make a mistake.
Let's get to the bottom of this, define the criteria for banning, and try to figure out if Stu's banning is fair or not. And let's all understand the criteria so WE know how not to get banned!
Cheers,
Dr. Piton
P.S. Now here's my personal appeal: I like Stu - he's a good friend and supporter of mine. He is the owner of Nelson Rocks where a really superb RC.com get together happened this spring! I don't want to see him banned.
Stu is a bit of a reprobate like me. Some people "get us," and some people don't. Some people think Stu and I are two of the biggest jackasses on God's Green Earth, and others love us so much they'll stand behind us, and carry our pigs to the base of a wall. In truth, we're just like anyone - we have our good points, and we have our bad points, too.
Stu is also a man of passion. Sometimes he gets carried away, and perhaps writes without thinking. So do I. Don't we all?
The first time I met Stu, I could not believe what a genuinely nice guy he is! He is so different in person than his crusty internet persona of the "ooze", and has welcomed me to his home a number of times. However I am aware that we have to act on what he writes.
But that's not the reason we need Stu around here. The reason we need Stu at RC.com is because he is the Voice of Reason. His arguments are logical and persuasive. He is very much in favour of free speech and against censorship, and on a privately-run website such as this where the owners have final say, I believe we need a moderating influence, someone who is unafraid to go against the flow. You sure as heck can't call Stu Hammett a coward!
In closing, I would like you to read this Editorial by Stu, which is an excellent example of why he shouldn't be banned.
With thanks,
Pete
P.P.S. Please don't delete this post! Have you figured out yet what happened when the last post was deleted? How long does this require?! Sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 18, 2003, 7:44 PM
Post #2 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I thought Stu was having his way with the Matrix. Turns out the Matrix has had her way with Stu.
Before anyone gets too outraged, just remember... Stu is a lawyer. He's his own client.
And tell the ooze he can always come back to rec.climbing, where the men are men, the trolls are legendary, where we don't ban and we don't take American Express.
Can I say that?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Aug 18, 2003, 7:49 PM
Post #3 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: Blah blah wah wah Stu blah blah banned wah wah
Pete,
Stu Hammett screwed the pooch one time too many, and got what he deserved.
I doubt the administration will be moved to unban Stu, based purely on you "stirring the pot" (as you so eloquently put it)
As for your "Voice of Reason" - Stu's arguments, are at best half-truths, laden with emotion, to try to sway the reader - than arguments based on truth and fact, presenting things as they are.
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Aug 18, 2003, 7:51 PM
Post #4 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
HMMM. well i'm not worried about getting banned. 8)
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Aug 18, 2003, 7:53 PM
Post #5 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: Can I say that? DMT
Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Aug 18, 2003, 7:53 PM
Post #6 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
Sauron,
How about some answers to the questions posted above?
I posed questions, and I expect answers.
If you are not high enough up on the totem pole to answer, then please tell somebody who will.
My friend got banned - I want to know how and why. Simple enough.
|
|
|
|
|
mother_sheep
Aug 18, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #7 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 3984
|
Oh the drama. . .
|
|
|
|
|
cookie-monster
Deleted
Aug 18, 2003, 8:01 PM
Post #8 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Cookie-monster look up "Drama Queen" in dictionary and it say "see passthepitonspete".
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Aug 18, 2003, 8:05 PM
Post #9 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
How can they really ban you anyway? The worst they can do is block your IP in which you can circumvent by browsing anonymously using a number of sites online. If he has a dialup connection or DSL with a nonstatic IP it should be of no problem since the IP changes everytime you log on anyway, but it could also be blocking by cookies, tell Stu to clear his cookies. There really is no other way I can think of in which they could block him, I could be wrong but hey just trying to help(sorta) I guess knowledge will be the next thing banned on this site(maybe)?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 18, 2003, 8:15 PM
Post #10 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: How can they really ban you anyway? The worst they can do is block your IP in which you can circumvent by browsing anonymously using a number of sites online.
This goes to my "it's all personal" theory...
I don't think Stu Hammet could look himself in the mirror every morning if he had to divorce himself from his own identity in order to participate in rc.com.
I mean, what would be the point?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
traddaddy
Aug 18, 2003, 8:32 PM
Post #11 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2001
Posts: 195
|
I bet this kind of sheet doesn't go on at http://www.wvclimbing.com!!!
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Aug 18, 2003, 8:45 PM
Post #12 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
I propose that someone with a tad more initiative (and time) than me go out and get some T-shirts printed up with the logo "I was banned from rockclimbing.com."
I think there's gonna be a market. :)
|
|
|
|
|
djmeat
Aug 18, 2003, 9:15 PM
Post #13 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 4497
|
I think I might get myself banned for just such a reason. then I can be cool too.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 18, 2003, 9:15 PM
Post #14 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Hahaha, hey thanks for the seneca site link, that's one of the better things I have seen on rc.com lately.
Speaking of moderators and moving posts adn all that, I am getting a little unhappy myself with what passes for moderation around here. I won't name names, but once I got a tar pitt threat from a mod/admin for having a heated argument wiht a friend of theirs.
And lately, when I got a private message from a friend (female) about her post in the ladies room, and I went a posted something in answer, I got a moderator/bluenose message informing me that my post did not belong in the ladies room. Now my post was on page three of a thread that probably didn't belong there, but really, what was the point of sending me a message?
I think there are some ego-inflated self agrandizing moderators as well as some misguided ones, after all, who is likely to take such a position, if not someone who wants a little fiefdom to call their own? THe job certainly sucks, whoever takes it is going to get a load of criticism whatever they do, it jsut does not make sense to take the job of moderator doea it?
ANyway, I don't know the whole OOZE story, but I wonder if he didn't just step on the wrong toes. What was his bannable offence? I'd like to hear it from the banners.
On the bright side, by banning him, you have freed him from a great waste of time, and he will probably get more done at work and spend more time climbing, since he won't be hanigng around on RC.com any more.
|
|
|
|
|
ridgerunner
Aug 18, 2003, 9:40 PM
Post #15 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
All right Dirtieye, don't go and get yourself banned from here before Robert fixs the other BBS
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Aug 18, 2003, 9:54 PM
Post #16 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Sauron, How about some answers to the questions posted above? I posed questions, and I expect answers. If you are not high enough up on the totem pole to answer, then please tell somebody who will. My friend got banned - I want to know how and why. Simple enough. In reply to: Time to get a life! |
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 18, 2003, 9:54 PM
Post #17 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Steve, who are you?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 18, 2003, 10:51 PM
Post #18 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Let's get to the bottom of this, define the criteria for banning, and try to figure out if Stu's banning is fair or not. And let's all understand the criteria so WE know how not to get banned!
By way of general response, rather than in Stu's particular case, I can tell you that it is not easy to get banned from RC.com. You have to really want to achieve this special status. Getting banned requires a serious intent on an individual's part to get him/herself banned and above all--the determination to see it through. To be banned means that an individual has already been warned by PM, most likely numerous times, that their behavior on the site is inappropriate--as defined by the TOS document.
Anyone banned from RC.com has also likely been given "yellow light" and "red light" tarpits as well--and may have been temporarily banned in the past--perhaps more than once. In spite of all these measures, an individual in search of banning must ignore all these warnings and continue to violate the site's posting rules. Only then can an individual achieve banishment. The only thing I can't figure out (in light of the above) is how anyone could possibly be "surprised" when this happens. Doing the same objectionable thing over and over and then somehow expecting a different result is potentially a hallmark of insanity.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
cthcrockclimber
Aug 18, 2003, 10:54 PM
Post #19 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
Now for the real question... Does anybody care?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 18, 2003, 11:01 PM
Post #20 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: By way of general response, rather than in Stu's particular case, I can tell you that it is not easy to get banned from RC.com. You have to really want to achieve this special status. |
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 18, 2003, 11:06 PM
Post #21 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: By way of general response, rather than in Stu's particular case, I can tell you that it is not easy to get banned from RC.com. You have to really want to achieve this special status. Wow! Now I SO understanding banning. Care to take on stoning next?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 19, 2003, 12:09 AM
Post #22 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: By way of general response, rather than in Stu's particular case, I can tell you that it is not easy to get banned from RC.com. You have to really want to achieve this special status. Wow! Now I SO understanding banning. Care to take on stoning next?
Curt
Hehe, I'm sure you're right there brah. In fact I'd bet on it. But based upon the reception of the Beer Bouldering Guide I think I'll post my original stories and instructional tomes elsewhere. Nice chatting with you though!
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Aug 19, 2003, 12:09 AM
Post #23 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
In reply to: Why and how did this banning happen? What is the mechanism is for banning someone? Who makes the decision to ban, and how? If there is indeed an Official RC.com Banning Procedure, was it followed fairly in Stu's case? If there is, can you please publish it to share it with us? If there isn't, shouldn't we make one, and pretty darn fast? What is Stu's appeal process?
The answer to every question you asked is in the TOS:
In reply to: Banning There are four tiers to the actions taken in regards to violations of the TOS. All actions taken are documented for consistency and continuity, and all revisions of this document are timestamped and archived for reference. 1. Warning - for behavior that is unacceptable and in violation of the Terms of Service. 2. Tar Pits - these are usually stopgap measures, left in place until a private discussion with the user can take place. You will be notified automatically if you have been tarpitted. -Yellow allows for 1 post per hour. -Red allows for 1 post per day. 3. Temporary Ban - For the next offense, after being previously warned. This typically lasts for one week. 4. Permanent Ban - If at the conclusion of your one week temporary ban, you continue to violate the terms of this agreement, you will be permanently and proactively suspended from using the site. Any of the above actions will be discussed within the Admin and Moderator community. You will not be banned on the assessment of one person. However, severely disruptive or abusive behavior requiring immediate action may not be thoroughly discussed within the Mod/Admin community -- this will depend on the availability of other Administrators or Moderators at that moment. Moreover, we can and will use non-destructive means (decreasing the amount of posts a user can generate in a given time period, marking messages as 'do not display') to mitigate any perceived damages from a user's misbehavior. This allows for the user's posting privileges and submitted content to be immediately restored if, upon review, the penalty seems excessive. If you feel that you have been Moderated unfairly, please contact any Admin and they will look into it to ensure that the Moderation is fair. Note - All actions taken against any user will be handled PRIVATELY bewteen the Staff and the User, and will not be made public out of respect for the user's privacy. If you have a particular beef with any of the Staff, please do not take it to the Forums, as this only creates strife. Instead, please contact one of the Administrators. If you are not clear as to whom the Administrators are, please visit the Contributors page. If you contact more than one Administrator, it is appreciated if you will make that known. This allows us to co-ordinate and work together more efficiently on your problem.
I appreciate you again wanting to inject a bit of drama, but all the actions above were followed. Pete you are aware that all these actions were followed, and you even said that "I may have acted fairly in this case" when I let you in on some of the details, since he is your friend, and are speaking on his behalf. :roll:
Having said that, this is an outright lie:
In reply to: Please note that I am not fully familiar with the story, and all the reasons for RC.com's decisions, but I'd like to know and understand for two reasons.
Just as this thread is no different that what you asked here:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37523&start=30
I guess you just didn't get enough attention with that one. :roll:
But then you like injecting drama, right ??? Anything to get yourself in the light... And with 3 threads of controversy on the Front page at this time, of which you are a major part, you have your stage. You seem to look for any platform to get yourself into the light... Gotta ring that "look at me" bell. You should try for a more constructive approach though, are you capable of it ??? Without sending "canned questions" to users to Ask Dr Piton though. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
kyhangdog
Aug 19, 2003, 12:28 AM
Post #24 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 480
|
It's cool if someone wants to temporarily ban someone after being warned, but for cryin' out loud... permanently banning a respected user. Don't know Pete or Stu, but both add a lot to this site. I doubt that the ban is permanent. rrradam if Pete is always lookin' for the limelight then so are you. I think it is really corny that you post your traveling itinerary. Who gives a big crap. rradam is coming home, rradam is going here, rradam is climbing more than anyone else. Get a life.
|
|
|
|
|
hallm
Aug 19, 2003, 12:36 AM
Post #25 of 46
(4807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 170
|
Heh, that is funny.
Mostly, this site seems to be a forum for spouters and attention grabbers. Every so often, there is some useful information.
All in all, I don't really care who gets banned, and who is in power. But it is interesting to see all the "personalities" on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
