|
bumblie
Nov 17, 2003, 6:54 PM
Post #1 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
A couple of months ago someone named Jutt posted a bunch of nice bouldering pics from around the Southeast. It seems like there was a controversy about the fact about the descriptions for these pics, or more aptly the lack of descriptions.
Now it seems all of his pics have been pulled from the site. Did he do this or was it the mods? If it was the mods, what was their reasoning? Anyone have the lowdown?
|
|
|
|
|
pisceian
Nov 17, 2003, 6:59 PM
Post #2 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2003
Posts: 86
|
I'm pretty sure he pulled them all by himself since the controversy was ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
nagatana
Nov 17, 2003, 7:06 PM
Post #3 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2003
Posts: 425
|
(and beyond the vague descriptions were access issues)
|
|
|
|
|
tradpuppy
Nov 17, 2003, 7:11 PM
Post #4 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2002
Posts: 722
|
Direct quote by Jut from another message board:
"I'm done over there. Photos are gone along with my motivation."
This is one controversy that needs to die. Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Nov 17, 2003, 7:29 PM
Post #5 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
Those were some great pictures. To bad he pulled them because of some whiney rc.comers.
|
|
|
|
|
scclimber
Nov 17, 2003, 7:32 PM
Post #6 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2003
Posts: 159
|
something about inaccurate links to the RDB.
|
|
|
|
|
graysondamondamian
Nov 17, 2003, 8:03 PM
Post #7 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 186
|
only the pics from one specific bouldering area were pulled, the rest are up and accurate
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 17, 2003, 8:21 PM
Post #8 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: only the pics from one specific bouldering area were pulled, the rest are up and accurate
According to his profile, he has no pictures. :(
|
|
|
|
|
goldencrowbar
Nov 17, 2003, 9:23 PM
Post #9 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2003
Posts: 112
|
I didn't have any trouble figuring out where they were.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanhos
Nov 17, 2003, 10:12 PM
Post #10 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: This is one controversy that needs to die. Forever.
Well said. Personally I didn't mind his descriptions or the RDB deception. I just thought he was a lazy southerner. Other members couldn't let it sloide. Some people just aren't happy unless they're stirring the controversy. Go join the "ptpp sent me naughty pictures" thread. It shoudl be fashionable for about a week.
I think that thread is the straw that broke the camel's back. When the camel fell, he landed right over the killfile button under ptpp's username..
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Nov 18, 2003, 2:45 PM
Post #11 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: Personally I didn't mind his descriptions or the RDB deception. I just thought he was a lazy southerner. I think that thread is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Obviously, a lot of people missed the humor of his repetitive descriptions. Some people were quite angry about it. After the whole text issue got played out, word got out that some of the listed locations were "made up". Oh my! The word I heard was that many of the pics were taken in an access sensitive area, that had been closed to the public for several years. Jut's motivations were to divert interest in that bouldering area, while providing this site with a number of pics.
Through the grapevine, I heard that this was nothing more than a case of some mods not liking how Jut went about posting his pics, so they ran him off. He didn't post profanity or porn or do anything that could create a liability for the owners of this site. He didn't do anything that would offend advertisers - giving they have even the slightest sense of humor. Yet Jut and his pics are gone.
This is definitely a dead horse issue that has been beaten to death. I was just hoping to hear (publicly) from those mods who ran him off because they didn't like the way he posted.
But still, we have accused stalkers and big league hate sprayers regularly posting. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Nov 19, 2003, 1:00 AM
Post #12 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: word got out that some of the listed locations were "made up". Oh my! The word I heard was that many of the pics were taken in an access sensitive area, that had been closed to the public for several years. Jut's motivations were to divert interest in that bouldering area, while providing this site with a number of pics.
All areas Jut featured are areas which are currently open.
In reply to: Through the grapevine, I heard that this was nothing more than a case of some mods not liking how Jut went about posting his pics, so they ran him off.
Your "grapevine" needs a bit more work then. The issue was not about "Jut" but about his unwillingness to correctly link the photos he had submitted. This is a site policy that every photo that you ever see here has followed. He said he wanted us to change our policy. We considered the change and decided against it. We communicated this back and asked that his pics be correctly linked. He then deleted them. It was Jut's call from the beginning. No one "ran him out of town". He simply decided he would rather delete his pics than correctly link them.
In reply to: He didn't post profanity or porn or do anything that could create a liability for the owners of this site. He didn't do anything that would offend advertisers - giving they have even the slightest sense of humor. Yet Jut and his pics are gone.
And you can ask Jut as to why.
|
|
|
|
|
nagatana
Nov 19, 2003, 1:09 AM
Post #13 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2003
Posts: 425
|
In reply to: This is a site policy that every photo that you ever see here has followed. He said he wanted us to change our policy. We considered the change and decided against it. We communicated this back and asked that his pics be correctly linked. He then deleted them. It was Jut's call from the beginning.
Admit it, it's a North vs. South thing, you tree-huggin' liberal hippies.
|
|
|
|
|
goldencrowbar
Nov 19, 2003, 1:30 AM
Post #14 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2003
Posts: 112
|
General Lee Boulders, On the owners website it is requested that you salute the statue of a confederate soldier when driving thru town.
Bo Peep Boulders, Site of multiple FA's and renaming of the same problems over and over. To me Juts names were just more of the same or they could even be the original name. I heard a rumor that Boars nest was an original name once. Because of all this I feel that his stuff was legit.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Nov 19, 2003, 1:37 AM
Post #15 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: General Lee Boulders, On the owners website it is requested that you salute the statue of a confederate soldier when driving thru town. Bo Peep Boulders, Site of multiple FA's and renaming of the same problems over and over. To me Juts names were just more of the same or they could even be the original name. I heard a rumor that Boars nest was an original name once. Because of all this I feel that his stuff was legit.
The areas "other names" which have been accepted as the norm for those areas were already in the database as such. Just as we wouldn't want multiple listings for Tahquitz as "Tahquitz" and then another area called "Lilly Rock" etc... it is about consistency. In addition, Juts areas were created with no info. This is problematic considering the same area was already created prior with the correct info.
Even Jut admitted in his posts that it was "partially because I am lazy". Its unfortunate Jut deleted his own replies so others can't see who it all went down. This was not a case of the Mods against Jut. It was a case where we didn't agree, considered his alternative, declined it, and asked him to comply with the established guidelines which EVERY other users does who submits photos.
Everything else that has happened since has been Juts own doing and no one has deleted or edited anything of his other than Jut himself.
It is that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
polarwid
Nov 19, 2003, 3:19 AM
Post #16 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2001
Posts: 3608
|
polarwid moved this thread from General to Suggestions & Questions.
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Nov 20, 2003, 2:56 AM
Post #17 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
In reply to: This is a site policy that every photo that you ever see here has followed.
That is total BS. I brought this up to you weeks ago - you have done nothing about it. What you said was a lie. Period.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...Area.php?AreaID=6844
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Nov 20, 2003, 4:17 AM
Post #19 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
In reply to: These bogus areas took me less than a minute to find.... Wonder what I could find if I put some effort into it. Bottom line, you're full of s--- and had it out for me.
There are bogus areas, mistakes, errors, ommisions and other garbage in the routes database. There are also photos that are incorrectly linked. That's just the nature of the beast. The photo eds and other volunteers do their best to prevent this and are generally successful. That errors exist doesn't make it ok for you to ignore one of the few conditions imposed by this site in exchange for hosting your photos for free -- that you link them to the routes database. Or for that matter willful corruption of the routes database with bogus information, if that is what is occuring. That's all, it's not rocket science. This is the policy at the moment (and has been for a very long time) and you are being asked to follow it. There is no lie.
Now that's not to say the policy can't be revised, and indeed serious discussion has and continues to take place about this very policy. Roughster has been instrumental in moving that discussion forward. But as it stands now, this is the way that it is. You don't have to like it.
|
|
|
|
|
graysondamondamian
Nov 20, 2003, 4:23 AM
Post #20 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 186
|
In reply to: In reply to: These bogus areas took me less than a minute to find.... Wonder what I could find if I put some effort into it. Bottom line, you're full of s--- and had it out for me. There are bogus areas, mistakes, errors, ommisions and other garbage in the routes database. There are also photos that are incorrectly linked. That's just the nature of the beast. The photo eds and other volunteers do their best to prevent this and are generally successful. That errors exist doesn't make it ok for you to ignore one of the few conditions imposed by this site in exchange for hosting your photos for free -- that you link them to the routes database. Or for that matter willful corruption of the routes database with bogus information, if that is what is occuring. That's all, it's not rocket science. This is the policy at the moment (and has been for a very long time) and you are being asked to follow it. There is no lie. Now that's not to say the policy can't be revised, and indeed serious discussion has and continues to take place about this very policy. Roughster has been instrumental in moving that discussion forward. But as it stands now, this is the way that it is. You don't have to like it.
wait, what is your reason for jut's pictures being "unacceptable" and the others that he listed not???
|
|
|
|
|
ropeburn
Nov 20, 2003, 4:27 AM
Post #21 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2003
Posts: 594
|
All other issues aside, I thought juts' pictures were damn good and it's a shame to see them go.
|
|
|
|
|
fear
Nov 20, 2003, 4:33 AM
Post #22 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 475
|
Ditto that....
And after all... he was damn proud too....
-Fear
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 20, 2003, 4:41 AM
Post #23 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
What I don't understand about all this is, why can't people just use a non-specific 'Area' for their pictures? Eg. "Georgia" or "North America" and leave it at that?
Do we have some sort of policy in place whereby every damn location must be disclosed? I mean, it's not OK to stuff the routesdb full of crap, but it's less effort to just be less specific.
I thought Jut's photos were fantastic; I would like to think that we can offer a constructive solution, but unfortunately I don't know the whole story here. This issue came up recently regarding another Southern Boy and his sekr1t area... my suggestion was the same ("be less specific and more lazy"). Is that a problem for any of the mods/eds/mgrs?!
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Nov 20, 2003, 4:50 AM
Post #24 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
In reply to: What I don't understand about all this is, why can't people just use a non-specific 'Area' for their pictures? Eg. "Georgia" or "North America" and leave it at that? Do we have some sort of policy in place whereby every damn location must be disclosed? I mean, it's not OK to stuff the routesdb full of crap, but it's less effort to just be less specific.
I think that's the best solution proposed so far. But it needs to be clear that one should make an honest attempt to be as specific as possible AND that the only excuse for not being specific down to the route level is in cases where there are clear and known access issues. That's relatively rare, and with a more lenient policy like this the temptation is to say "awww, I'm lazy, I'll just say it's in 'merica somewhere". And in that case we might as well not bother.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Nov 20, 2003, 5:52 AM
Post #25 of 66
(5418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I too must chime in and declare that juts pics were just fantastic. I`d like also to in all sincerety thank jut for bringing this to a head as linking every damn pic has been a problem. Some pics just don`t fit neatly into the routes requirement.
I`m sorry that jut has had to endure what he has been through over his pics and I honestly mean that. It has caused all the mods and admins to deeply examine our policy that we were attempting to slavishly follow.
I do think that we are coming towards some form of consensus over these sorts of issues. I think that a certain amount of flexibility will be the outcome.
I`ll say it again that rc.com is an evolving creature and we can all accept change or be left behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
