|
|
|
|
skierbrian
Apr 21, 2010, 2:29 AM
Post #1 of 13
(3904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2006
Posts: 32
|
This is relevant to suggestion "When to Route Edits happen" http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2208454;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;page=unread#unread
In the spirit of freeflow of information and in order to make the best information available, change the "approval authority" to no one for route edits. Similar to wikipedia.com (do you doubt anything you read there?) rely on the good name of the people who bother to make the edits. Allow a page to have a history of edits, and the ability to see who made them. A crag, route, and areas can all be edited by a signed in user. If that person is posting bad information and it's in bad faith, then that can be reported to the moderators.
Controversial edits, and be discussed an footnoted (e.g. alternate names), and ultimately decided by the area editor. Give the area editor veto authority vs. approval authority, that is the ability to undo changes, and request that someone be blocked from posting edits (if it gets bad).
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 30, 2010, 5:04 AM
Post #2 of 13
(3875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Good suggestion.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 30, 2010, 7:41 AM
Post #3 of 13
(3866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: Good suggestion. GO
Which will be completely ignored, unless ddt can think of a way to make a buck from it.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Apr 30, 2010, 1:04 PM
Post #4 of 13
(3854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
Though I would suggest that some areas be locked out of this by default. Note that the suggester posted this rant about the lack of routes posted for Farley and how "Information sharers will always win". I think he meant "win" as in "posting the info online", versus "getting the area closed because the private land owner specifically asked for it not to be posted."
I don't know a thing about Farley, but it seems like that would be an area that should specifically remained locked. Same for Lost City at the Gunks. There are reasons not all areas should be wide open for route addition.
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Apr 30, 2010, 3:35 PM
Post #5 of 13
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060
|
mojomonkey wrote: Though I would suggest that some areas be locked out of this by default. Note that the suggester posted this rant about the lack of routes posted for Farley and how "Information sharers will always win". I think he meant "win" as in "posting the info online", versus "getting the area closed because the private land owner specifically asked for it not to be posted." I don't know a thing about Farley, but it seems like that would be an area that should specifically remained locked. Same for Lost City at the Gunks. There are reasons not all areas should be wide open for route addition.
He just wants to record his gnar zends. Let the man show everyone how awesome he is!
|
|
|
|
|
skierbrian
May 2, 2010, 7:11 PM
Post #6 of 13
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2006
Posts: 32
|
Thanks Dr Feelgood. You are exactly right. It is all about my knarly sends. Also mojo is exactly right too. We should be able to lock out areas (like Farley).
I do believe that information sharers will always win. The fact tat landowners at Farley don't want routes posted, will eventually succumb to the fact that some people will find ways to share this information anyway (e.g. check out picassa.com).
If Rock Climbing wants to lock certain areas, while allowing the rest of us to freely add to areas that are not locked, then this would meet the intent of my request.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 2, 2010, 11:52 PM
Post #7 of 13
(3807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
skierbrian wrote: Thanks Dr Feelgood. You are exactly right. It is all about my knarly sends. Also mojo is exactly right too. We should be able to lock out areas (like Farley). I do believe that information sharers will always win. The fact tat landowners at Farley don't want routes posted, will eventually succumb to the fact that some people will find ways to share this information anyway (e.g. check out picassa.com). If Rock Climbing wants to lock certain areas, while allowing the rest of us to freely add to areas that are not locked, then this would meet the intent of my request.
Or they will close it down and the douchebags who broke the simple rules will fuck it up for the rest. If you think i'm kidding go read up on the history of Torrent Falls. Closed to climbing unless you stay at their cabins because a few people couldn't keep their dogs on a leash.
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
May 3, 2010, 3:33 AM
Post #8 of 13
(3802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060
|
skierbrian wrote: Thanks Dr Feelgood. You are exactly right. It is all about my knarly sends. Also mojo is exactly right too. We should be able to lock out areas (like Farley). I do believe that information sharers will always win. The fact tat landowners at Farley don't want routes posted, will eventually succumb to the fact that some people will find ways to share this information anyway (e.g. check out picassa.com). If Rock Climbing wants to lock certain areas, while allowing the rest of us to freely add to areas that are not locked, then this would meet the intent of my request.
Hi Brian,
It is nice to know that I am right. It simply reaffirms my own narcissistic attitudes towards my level of awesome. Not all of my former climbing partners can appreciate my awesomeness, nor my biting humor.
I'm going to concede a point to you. Information sharers will always win. There is a shit ton of information available, especially to the united states government, which just might be your employer. Fuck, you don't even need permission any more, thanks to the patriot act.
I wasn't being funny. Or facetious. Until your glorious day exists, when the people rise up against the fuckers that control access and a bunch of other shit, access to climbing areas is done on a case by case basis. Many of these cases are easy; some take a fight. Farley has taken a fight. Granted, I can picasa search beta pics to show me the hold on some gnarkilltastic 5.4, but I shouldn't need to. You might, based on the last time that we climbed together, and your profile.
If you want to climb farley, find someone who knows. To publish this would mean the lost sense of adventure that the old timers lament; the loss of revolutionary thought inherent in climbing. Yes, it is a bolted chosspile. Yes, you need to know how to get there. Yes, parking sucks.
Do you know what else sucks? Losing access. My local fucktard used his chisel to destroy climbing at farley. He could have succeeded. The property owners, who you insult and deride(i totally agree that the ledges do not deserve such a punishment as owners), control the key to the gate that is farley.
Climbing on the east coast sucks. It does. There are several token areas, spread a few hours apart, that merit attention. To make up for the lack of good climbing, these areas are guarded by the people that climb them; intermediary areas are installed to allow locals to climb without driving 3 hours each way to climb. Farley is one of these areas; if access were lost at farley, Wmass would be stuck going to the smaller crags.
I'm not from western mass. I don't claim to be a Farley local. I can probably name more boulder problems in connecticut than routes in mass. I've probably led more routes in my very short history as a climber than farley has. Period.
That being said, I love Farley. I love the fact that I can now park there without walking for fucking ever. I like that it is becoming a pseudo-testground of new england climbing. I don't want pissed off land owners telling me that I shouldn't climb Air Blast(5.9), the Nippleator(V2?) or anything else there.
The information sharers might win eventually. I won't live that long. The history of mankind suggests either fast progress or slow progress, each equally bloody. How about we try medium progress; they let us climb at farley, people share information the old fashion way... by word of mouth. You'll know what you have climbed, and not climbed. Other will too, if you push yourself to a level where this is impressive.
This was not a traditionalist rant. This was a voicing of the future, and the desires of the next generation to climb the limited amount of rock on the east coast and new england. I fucking hate pulling plastic, and farley is a good escape.
Let us keep it that way.
Jeff Bartos
Connecticut.
|
|
|
|
|
skierbrian
May 3, 2010, 3:13 PM
Post #9 of 13
(3779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2006
Posts: 32
|
Thanks Dr. You are right on.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 3, 2010, 3:40 PM
Post #10 of 13
(3778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Just to get back on track - whether or not you feel skierbrian is a selfish narcissistic douchebag, and all his *other* suggestions are bad ones, this suggestion (that RC.com should change the way route edits are handled) is well worth implementing, assuming that the functionality isn't hard-coded into the software you guys are running on.
Speaking of running on, sorry for the run-on sentence. Need more coffee.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
May 3, 2010, 8:58 PM
Post #11 of 13
(3761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
skierbrian wrote: Thanks Dr Feelgood. You are exactly right. It is all about my knarly sends. Also mojo is exactly right too. We should be able to lock out areas (like Farley). I do believe that information sharers will always win. The fact tat landowners at Farley don't want routes posted, will eventually succumb to the fact that some people will find ways to share this information anyway (e.g. check out picassa.com). If Rock Climbing wants to lock certain areas, while allowing the rest of us to freely add to areas that are not locked, then this would meet the intent of my request.
If an area has unique "access issues", like the one we are talking about, it SHOULD be, and remain locked.
Let's imagine for a moment that you didn't live at home with mom and dad, and actually had a place of your own, with a lot of land and big swell boulders in your rather large back yard... You allowed some locals to climb it, but asked NOT to have it posted on the net, since you really didn't want people in your back yard at ALL THE TIME, blasting tunes, leaving trash and beer bottles, and burning out as they left your land... Would you want us to lock it in our Database? What about some kid who climbs 5.8, demanding that he be allowed to put it on the net... What would you think about him?
When I ran things here, NOTHING was locked, except for areas like the one we are discussing... I agree with you that it should be that way (unlocked), but cetainly NOT for areas like this.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on May 3, 2010, 9:09 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
skierbrian
May 5, 2010, 6:49 AM
Post #12 of 13
(3731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2006
Posts: 32
|
You guys are right, respecting the land owners requests are important too. I apologize for my rant."
I agree that places like Farley should be locked.
What else do you want from me? I don't agree with your assessment of me as narcistic, a douche, self centered. By comparing me to a boltcutter, someone who lives at home in my parents basement, or someone who leave shit all over the cliff, just goes to show that you don't know me at all. I am none of these things.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 5, 2010, 4:18 PM
Post #13 of 13
(3715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
skierbrian wrote: You guys are right, respecting the land owners requests are important too. I apologize for my rant." I agree that places like Farley should be locked. What else do you want from me? I don't agree with your assessment of me as narcistic, a douche, self centered. By comparing me to a boltcutter, someone who lives at home in my parents basement, or someone who leave shit all over the cliff, just goes to show that you don't know me at all. I am none of these things.
Just in case you got the wrong impression from me, I think none of those things about you. I think you have some good ideas, and some not-so-good. Just like the rest of us. You'd have fared better by not digging your heels in when confronted by just how bad your not-so-good idea was (publicly arguing against landowner wishes by requesting the publicizing of routes at Farley).
Anyway, sorry the tone got nasty. Fact is, you learned something, which puts you head and shoulders above many of the posters here on rc.com.
Cheers,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
