|
|
|
|
roughster
Aug 11, 2004, 7:42 AM
Post #51 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Clearly an effort at intimidation. From a mod. Jesus Craig if that constitutes intimidation, you're an even bigger sissy than I thought you were. Maybe I should have sent you a Hallmark? I am glad you posted it for reference on this thread so people can see this dire threat that was infilicted. I simply said I would treat you in the same manner by which you treated me. Nothing more, nothing less.
In reply to: Now I don't want to imply this would ever be the case with Aaron, cause I'm sure he's a peach of a guy really. We obviously have some baggage, he and I. But consider the following scenrio, one that *could* happen here, rumor has it anyway. Let's say you have some abberant social deviant that worms his way into your mod or admin group, and under the color of authority starts sending say, sexually harrassing pm's to underage girls. Because a mod lacking in self restraint tried to intimidate the wrong person you would silence these victims? Yup, this is what happens when you abridge freedom of speech. It really, REALLY, is an important issue, the tender ego of a mod notwithstanding. Cheers DMT LOL you are "the wrong person"? Yes, Craig your one bad mofo aren't you? And you talk about the ego of others? lol. As for the harrassment button, it existed well before this whole BS.
|
|
|
|
|
highangle
Aug 11, 2004, 8:05 AM
Post #53 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 151
|
In reply to: This is really simple. Treat people like 3rd graders, put up tons of fences and lots of rules and they'll behave like 3rd graders and look for holes. Treat people like adults and those that are adults are more likely to act like adults. I couldn't agree more. At first blush, (after reading the posting of the the PM I assume is the cause), I thought that the authority to remove posted PMs and reprimands was in order. After further thought (and esp. reading Curt's posts), I couldn't justify in my mind that form of censorship. Sure, say what you want to say to someone privately, with the caveat that it may come back to haunt you. As stated in the TOS:
In reply to: You should use your best judgement in deciding who to trust, on rc.com as in life. In general, it is in extremely poor taste to post the contents of email or private messages, but some people simply have no taste... Now perhaps the TOS should include not posting personal info: real names, contact info, etc., outside of what is generally available through an individual user's profile. Again, the TOS is clear in stating that when you submit that info about yourself, it is fair game, but it is not appropriate to post the information of others. To me that fits within the general "ethic" of the site. But the opinions, views or attacks contained within a PM would be fair game for posting, and held out in the full light of day for the community to render a verdict. Post PMs if you want to, with the caveat that if you offend the community, you will quickly be marginalized. Climbing is all about ethics, personal, regional, overall ethics. Another tread contemplated the ethics of glue on routes. Others have discussed the "morality" of bolts vs. trad., passive vs. active, etc. This community is self-policing in so many areas, and willing to discuss opposing points of view, why should it not include the content of so called "personal (private)" messages. This independence of thought, style, ethic (and the acceptance of others) is what drew me into climbing years ago. That ethos should not be moderated by an in-flexible set of rules.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Aug 11, 2004, 8:24 AM
Post #54 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
I have definitely said my peace as it is related to the raised question. And certainly out of respect for those I think deserve it, I will go browse other threads with my ego in tow ;)
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 11, 2004, 8:30 AM
Post #55 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
I would like to revisit the apparent scapegoat for this this poll. The Wyattearp / Fairfield whatever. It started here with wyattearp saying about rosin:
In reply to: whaaa go cry about it! Depending on where you climb you need the stuff, try climibng with timmy fairfield, he loves the shizza! and try making him eat it overlord, im sure you will be hurting the next day Before jumping on his case to much you should check out the context. original thread Then we chewed his head off and convinced him that rosin and glue was bad. As far as Timy, his letter put him in a better light then I have ever seen him. What I do know of him is that he is a self righteous frick who thinks he can do whatever he wants, and then throws temper tantrums when he doesn’t get his way. As far as I know he has been manufacturing routes for quite a while, so this isn’t anything new or unique to this area. Call this character assassination? I call it, calling it like it is. He deserves to be outed.
|
|
|
|
|
wyattearp
Aug 11, 2004, 8:44 AM
Post #56 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2003
Posts: 365
|
thank you..... I now know I am an asshole, I though PM's meant Public message..... ha who knew? :D :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 11, 2004, 2:11 PM
Post #57 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
On a few occasions, I've personally received very nasty PM's from members that were proverbially kicked in the nuts during a flame-fest or debate. After being warned by a MOD or ADMIN to stop the insults, certain individuals have chosen to take the fight to PM's... When this happened, I had no problem posting the contents of those PM's, to shut these people down! If the rules are amended to include PM's, then whats next..? I know of at least one member that whined to an ADMIN about a nasty email that was sent by another member, causing the sender to be issued a formal warning. The problem herein lies that the delivery system wasn't via RC resources, and the only common denominator was the fact that both parties are members here. If anything, the recipient was in the wrong, because that person chose to PM the email contents to me, in an attempt to discredit the other person... Just leave it alone! 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 11, 2004, 2:21 PM
Post #58 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Jesus Craig if that constitutes intimidation, you're an even bigger sissy than I thought you were. What else is new? You measure the value of people to you as they relate to a vagina. Mmmm hmmmm. You're not a nice man Aaron and you seem to have a low opinion of women. Considered the Taliban dude? DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
Aug 11, 2004, 2:38 PM
Post #59 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
In reply to: In reply to: People shouldnt say things privately if they arent prepared to take public responsibility for their words. That about covers it for me. Agreed. Didn't your moms teach you to think before you speak?
|
|
|
|
|
rmiller
Aug 11, 2004, 2:46 PM
Post #60 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 251
|
In reply to: In reply to: When people have an expectation that they can say anything they want to you and you are bound to keep it private, they eventually WILL SAY ANYTHING! Dingus, I read your post, and while I have great appreciation for the points that you're trying to make, I think you're pushing left field a bit. We have a harassment button in the PMs for a reason. This will not go away. If someone is harassing you, please hit the link and forward the PM to the admin staff. We take harassment seriously. In reply to: You really should stop thinking you should be controlling people's conversations. It isn't right, and you know it. If we were in favor of controlling people, would we have started a poll to collect community feedback before making a decision regarding site policy? ;) It is true you started a poll, but it clearly indicates your bias.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Aug 11, 2004, 3:08 PM
Post #61 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...this leads me to wonder to what extent admins have access to pm's..... is it only when they are sent to them directly, due to harassment or offensive pm's? or can they just brouse willy-nilly through random pm's through the site..... just a thought, that's all.... Nope. You'd need to be a developer, and have a whole hell of a lot of time on your hands, to read any PMs. I made sure that was the case right around the time I started working on the site, similarly to passwords being encrypted. When the site was small, 'little' privacy matters like that didn't seem too important, or at least that's the impression I got. Eric and I both disagreed with that philosophy. No one gets to see your password, and no one gets to read your PM's besides the recipient. It really is that simple. I think its important to folks to realize that people *can* see your PM's. They aren't private by any means. What Tim has implied here is that at a minimum, *he* can see them. Don't get me wrong, the only was a system like this can work is if the developers can access the DB to get stuff out. It sounds like Tim went through some special effort to ensure that its a limited amount of people. The fact remains, however, that there are people who can see your PM's. Same with the fact that there are people who can see your email at your ISP, etc. Not important to the discussion perhaps, but important to realize. Edit to say: I'm not pointing a finger a Tim. I suspect he's too busy to much care what folks are PM'ing about. Murf
|
|
|
|
|
mingus
Aug 11, 2004, 3:20 PM
Post #62 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 55
|
I am really surprised at how many people can't be trusted with any sort of private conversation. Private is private. One reason people say things in confidence is because they DON'T WANT TO SAY IT PUBLICLY. You deciding (as a different person said) that people should take responsibility for what they say in private is bullshit. You don't get to decide for someone else how they should conduct themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 11, 2004, 3:31 PM
Post #63 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: You deciding (as a different person said) that people should take responsibility for what they say in private is s---. You don't get to decide for someone else how they should conduct themselves. Indeed. They get to decide how they should conduct themselves. And they can deal with the consequences if they decide to be duplicitous, craven, or abusive. Posting the contents of an email is considered poor form, but people do it. There is no more privacy (less, in fact) for email sent across a public network than PM's sent through the database, yet people can (and do) send patently ridiculous things via email to one another, then squirm and protest when they are 'outed'. But the fact remains that they chose to write the email in the first place... nb. Yes, this means I have come around to the majority point of view as a result of this discussion. What the recipient does with a private conversation -- one not legally bound to be confidential -- is up to the recipient, not the sender. Just like in real life.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 11, 2004, 3:37 PM
Post #64 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: I think its important to folks to realize that people *can* see your PM's. They aren't private by any means. What Tim has implied here is that at a minimum, *he* can see them. Don't get me wrong, the only was a system like this can work is if the developers can access the DB to get stuff out. It sounds like Tim went through some special effort to ensure that its a limited amount of people. The fact remains, however, that there are people who can see your PM's. Same with the fact that there are people who can see your email at your ISP, etc. Not important to the discussion perhaps, but important to realize. Being a developer myself, I can honestly say that even for a relataively small board, it's a major pain in the ass to read others' PM's... When stored in the database, they are assigned a very random alpha-numeric ID, that is then forwarded on the the actual recipient. If someone were to want to read everything that a single member sent or received, they would actually have to filter through each and every PM on the entire database in order to do so. If someone were to use another members' password to gain access, there would also be an IP trail clearly leaving a time/date stamp. As for the password info, one would honestly have to have FTP access to the root level of the domain, and in many cases, that won't even suffice, if they are being stored in a sub-domain or on a remote server. This is something that I have done, to make damn sure that nobody other than the site owner or top level coders have this level of access. It also protects the member database, if the event of a server crash. :wink: If you're concerned about anything that is deemed 'sensitive information', then remove it and store it as a .txt file on your own computer. On 2 seperate occassions when traveling, I have called members and asked them to access my account (I gave them the login/pass info) to lookup some info contained in my saved PM's. The info I was needing was either contact info for a member in the area in which I was headed, or directions/beta for a specific crag. Upon return from those 2 trips, I simpoly changed my password.
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Aug 11, 2004, 3:37 PM
Post #65 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I just wanted to clarify the copyright issue. I deal with this issue alot with my job. If I send you a letter, I'm giving you physical ownership of that letter, but that does not convey ownership of copyright. For that to occur, it would need to be written down somewhere. With just physical ownership you'd be allow to show your copy to whoever you please, but you have no right to make additional copies (unless you happens to be a library or archive, or if the letter was created as part of government business). If you feel the need to talk about someones letter or even email, you'd do best by just giving a summary, and you may be able to quote segments under Fair Use, but certainly not an entire letter. Copyright is often violated, and many times it is not punished. That being said, if you do reprint parts of someone elses letter or email, it would be wise to get permission first simply to protect yourself. See the Digital Millennium Copyright Act if you are really interested in web related issues, because they have less effect on my work as of yet, so I know less about them. Give me a couple of years, and I'm sure that will change.
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Aug 11, 2004, 3:48 PM
Post #66 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
How is it any different than one person telling something to some one else and that person going and telling every one? It happens. Part of life. Get over it. Sure it's bad form, but if you don't want to read it then don't. It's as simple as that. If you don't want your pm to get out then don't write one. It is the internet after all.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 11, 2004, 3:55 PM
Post #67 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: As for the password info, one would honestly have to have FTP access to the root level of the domain, and in many cases, that won't even suffice, if they are being stored in a sub-domain or on a remote server. This is something that I have done, to make damn sure that nobody other than the site owner or top level coders have this level of access. It also protects the member database, if the event of a server crash. :wink: Actually, we use MD5 passwords for pretty much everything, with separate passwords for the system accounts (eg. you need both passwords to do anything major). I ran mdcrack on my own password and it took 6 hours to brute force on a P3/1.4GHz machine; anyone who doesn't use 'password' as their password has a reasonable assurance of privacy for it. PM's are stored as plaintext, but dissociated from their sender and recipient -- I thought about encrypting them on the fly, but setting up public/private keys for each account, and then firing messages through them, was unappealing to say the least ;-). Very little return on time invested, since I had already disabled any 'easy' methods to look at PM's, relegating any snooping to people who have a shell on the production webserver. None of whom seem to be inclined to do so, and any of whom I would be happy to crucify publicly if I find out otherwise. Nothing personal...
|
|
|
|
|
hardmanknott
Aug 11, 2004, 4:00 PM
Post #69 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 228
|
In reply to: I just wanted to clarify the copyright issue. I deal with this issue alot with my job. If I send you a letter, I'm giving you physical ownership of that letter, but that does not convey ownership of copyright. For that to occur, it would need to be written down somewhere. With just physical ownership you'd be allow to show your copy to whoever you please, but you have no right to make additional copies (unless you happens to be a library or archive, or if the letter was created as part of government business). If you feel the need to talk about someones letter or even email, you'd do best by just giving a summary, and you may be able to quote segments under Fair Use, but certainly not an entire letter. Copyright is often violated, and many times it is not punished. That being said, if you do reprint parts of someone elses letter or email, it would be wise to get permission first simply to protect yourself. See the Digital Millennium Copyright Act if you are really interested in web related issues, because they have less effect on my work as of yet, so I know less about them. Give me a couple of years, and I'm sure that will change. I am curious about this. I thought it was illegal to make public a private correspondence -- it seems this would indeed be a copyright violation. When we quote a message--as I have done here--I am essentially "reprinting" your "work". In this context it seems to be accepted, whether it is *technically* legal or not. However, "reprinting" a private message--especially for the purpose of defaming--would seem to be more cut and dried. Word-up to my whiggaz: Any private e-mails reproduced without the express permission of Hardman Knott will be subject to a civil action of biblical proportions. You've been warned... Hardman Knott
|
|
|
|
|
mingus
Aug 11, 2004, 4:22 PM
Post #70 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 55
|
Of course - 'just like in real life', people that have possesion of your private thoughts can and do pass them on despite your wishes. That makes them unethical and untrustworthy pieces of garbage in my book. From my perspective all these posts stating the obvious (that this is the net and everything you write 'isn't really private') seem to be beside the point. Just because one can do something doesn't make it right - and isn't that what we're really talking about?
In reply to: In reply to: You deciding (as a different person said) that people should take responsibility for what they say in private is s---. You don't get to decide for someone else how they should conduct themselves. Indeed. They get to decide how they should conduct themselves. And they can deal with the consequences if they decide to be duplicitous, craven, or abusive. Posting the contents of an email is considered poor form, but people do it. There is no more privacy (less, in fact) for email sent across a public network than PM's sent through the database, yet people can (and do) send patently ridiculous things via email to one another, then squirm and protest when they are 'outed'. But the fact remains that they chose to write the email in the first place... nb. Yes, this means I have come around to the majority point of view as a result of this discussion. What the recipient does with a private conversation -- one not legally bound to be confidential -- is up to the recipient, not the sender. Just like in real life.
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Aug 11, 2004, 4:43 PM
Post #71 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
In reply to: In reply to: If a PM is sent to you that you find offensive, forward it on to an admin. Though I would chose your admins wisely. A few of the current ones have either directly supported or have personally published private emails, private messages, and personal information in the past to the general forums. I'm sorry but i take offense at this! I don't have prior knowledge as to what happened before i joined rc.com, but don't start hauling out the trash. As far as i know, all admins and mods can be trusted with questionable/personal pm's. sorry roughster, but that's just bad form! I do too....Especially since I happen to have PM in my inbox where "roughster" threatened to reveal my full name to the site although I keep my last name off the site for safety reasons, because I divulged his first name b/c, erroneously and for that I apologyze to him, I thought it was common knowledge. The funny thing is, though, the name he was going to post to the thread wasn't mine. Anyway, we settled that issue via PM (in this case, semi-PM), but it's exactly those types of private threats that the right to post PM's should help protect us agaist.
|
|
|
|
|
darth_gaydar
Aug 11, 2004, 4:48 PM
Post #72 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2004
Posts: 168
|
In reply to: Of course - 'just like in real life', people that have possesion of your private thoughts can and do pass them on despite your wishes. That makes them unethical and untrustworthy pieces of garbage in my book. From my perspective all these posts stating the obvious (that this is the net and everything you write 'isn't really private') seem to be beside the point. Just because one can do something doesn't make it right - and isn't that what we're really talking about? Word, mingus. Things is, here people live on the high drama (myself included). Even the most pretigious and revered regulars love to suckle the drama teat. Therefore, most rationalize their abherrant tabloid-sleazy and insatiable desires in whatever fashion they can latch onto. Their need to find people even more screwed up than they clearly takes precedence over all manner of integrity, mores, or ethical considerations. They need to feed the rat. Also, the above mentioned copyright laws are absolutely true. Reproducing PM's is an absolute violation. It has been tested in court. The people that have had the confidence betrayed have been victorious in every case except where it was demonstrable that the perpetraor was ingtaged in illegtal activities, and even then, the opening up of private mailings (email or otherwise) has to go through proper litigious channels. Amber: Is the site run by the inmates or the staff? Just wondering, because it seems there is much inconsistancy in this area. Seems that the will of the people is follwed when it synchronizes with the wills of the powers that be. There have been many time when a consensus reached was not implemented. I am not trying to denegrate, so much as understand what the actual goal is and what end purpose is to be derived.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Aug 11, 2004, 4:49 PM
Post #73 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
But under the current copyright system (which sucks, btw), even if it is a violation of copyright (which I'm not sure that posting private email is), it only matters if someone sues you. So, if I publish information you sent me in a PM that you didn't want to be public, it's going to be public whether I get punished for the action or not---which depends on your willingness to spend money to go to court and persue the issue. For emails the copyright question is basically a red herring, because no one is going to bother to sue you. As far as etiquette of posting private correspondence: there's also etiquette against sending people unsolicited private correspondence. If you send someone an unsolicited rude or threatening PM that continues from an argument from a public forum---they're probably going to (and should) reply it to the forum with "don't send me private email". Such a reply is perfectly justified. Putting this crap in the TOS just adds more rules to a site that already has too many rules. Vote no (assuming the votes will influence the result).
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Aug 11, 2004, 5:03 PM
Post #74 of 116
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
In reply to: Seems that the will of the people is followed when it synchronizes with the wills of the powers that be. There have been many time when a consensus reached was not implemented Could you provide me with some examples? I'm usually pretty insistent about following the results of polls that I have initiated - I'm wasting my time otherwise. But, I certainly dont know everything that goes on around here. Again, I do not know to which other polls you are referring, but speaking for this poll, it has affected things. So far, it's looking like the TOS will likely remain the same - the only real reason for changing the TOS is to provide a benefit to the users, the same users who have spoken rather strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo. As such, there's no real reason to change things. Regardless, please do keep voting and discussing.
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Aug 11, 2004, 5:15 PM
Post #75 of 116
(5438 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Emails are the same as a paper based letter. On PMs I'm not certain, but I would assume they would be treated the same. Sure, if you publish copyrighted material it will then be "public," but you can get your but sued off. My sister is a big-whig lawyer, I'm sure she'd help me if I had some strange interest in doing so. Certain people will sue, and you can take your chances.
|
|
|
|
|
|