Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:11 PM
Post #76 of 147 (1944 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

all i can hear is

In reply to:
blah, blah blah, petz, bakingz, gardenz, when's jack gonna post?


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:13 PM
Post #77 of 147 (2127 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
well that is a lot of hogwash. A social contract to provide content? the Knob had that bite at the apple, and ran off most anyone who knew what they were talking about just so they could coddle n00bs--those unique users you are after.

best clown post ever.


notapplicable


Feb 8, 2011, 11:11 PM
Post #78 of 147 (2106 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

     Re: [tripperjm] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

tripperjm wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

But what about awl teh lurkers? What will happen to awl of them? Where will they awl go?

We contribute plenty. Teh BET v2 has 60450 posts and 928631 views. so that's like uhhh.... 870,000 more views than posts. Sumbody is reading awl that shit contributed content.

The SPCI has a substantially higher view count to post count ratio than any incarnation of the BET. It is clear who's content is more highly valued round these parts.


(This post was edited by notapplicable on Feb 8, 2011, 11:11 PM)


notapplicable


Feb 8, 2011, 11:33 PM
Post #79 of 147 (2096 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250


notapplicable


Feb 8, 2011, 11:39 PM
Post #80 of 147 (2093 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

     Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

I seem to be a bit shy of 8/10. kind of surprised by that, actually.


(This post was edited by notapplicable on Feb 8, 2011, 11:42 PM)


ddt


Feb 8, 2011, 11:54 PM
Post #81 of 147 (2089 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

     Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

The BETers are responsible for zillions of page views, and hence revenue for the site. That's all that matters. This is a business. Ain't no social contract with someone making money off you.

Jay

Bull. Advertisers are smarter than that. It's the rate of unique visitors that they tend to be mostly interested in. Regular repeat visitors, as the least likely to click on an ad, mean relatively little.

Prove that the page clicks on the BET thread generate little to no money for the site.

Jay

Not being privy to the internal workings of the rc.com business model, I of course cannot prove this - but I can make some informed predictions. If ddt's smart, he's hosting ads based upon the common model of payment per thousand views - under which model the BET thread would seem to be profitable. However - just about all advertisers filter the stats so that internal actions by users (posting, reloading, going to the next page, etc.) don't actually add to the count, but as far as I'm aware most of these actions do add to the "thread views" count. So to get a feel for how many views of the BET threads actually add to the site's revenue, divide that 900,000 views number by at least ten. So, 90,000 unique views in a year and a half? Yawn - if you want to be making real money out of a site, you need to be getting those sort of numbers per day.

Still, it's 90,000 views in a year and a half that wouldn't be there otherwise. That's revenue for the site with zero marginal cost. Free money.

Jay

In the rc.com forums 1 million page views translates to roughly $300 to $500 in revenue. That's spread over a number of years of course for the BET. And I disagree that it comes with zero marginal cost.

To put the relative contribution in perspective, $300 is enough to cover approx 1 week of hosting for the site. Or 2 days of a full-time paid person, of which rc.com currently has 2.

I'm not saying we don't appreciate the revenue. I'm just trying to put it in perspective.

DDT


ddt


Feb 9, 2011, 12:00 AM
Post #82 of 147 (2082 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

     Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jt512 wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
well that is a lot of hogwash. A social contract to provide content?

+1. This site is a business for chrissake.

Jay

It sure is... one that relies heavily on a healthy community, which in turns relies on a successful business. A symbiosis in which we need each other.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 9, 2011, 1:40 AM
Post #83 of 147 (2065 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

     Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

notapplicable wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
...there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Um, more than 9/10 of your posts are in Scummunity or the S&F forum. Just sayin.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post_time&mh=250

I think you've missed the point. Last time I checked, those forums didn't have the digital equivalent of a skull-and-crossbones and "members only" painted over the door.


meatbomz


Feb 9, 2011, 5:36 AM
Post #84 of 147 (2044 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
 

spikeddem wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
Hypothetical:

BET is deleted. All BET'ers get big bruises on their butts and decide to leave the site. Like, urry last one of them.

What effect do we see?

Do the number of (useful) responses to people's questions in the climbing forums go down? Perhaps by 1%? Less?

You may have join dates of 2001-2003, but, honestly, I don't see you carrying any leverage.

You may have started off as the RC.com community, but you have all alienated yourselves so far from what the community has become that your join dates really don't matter for much at all. If someone never even stepped foot in scummunity, he or she would not even know that 80% of you guys existed. Meatbomz is an absolutely prime example. I probably didn't even know the username existed for like 3 years after joining this site. I also realize that that is the way you like it, too.

Certainly, I can understand it if you're discouraged from participating in the climbing forums due to either

1) Unoriginal questions.
2) Noobs countering your sage advice.

That being said, rc.com would lose SUCH a miniscule portion of visitors if my hypothetical happened, so you should really realize that rc.com does not need you, but rather chooses to put up with you.

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

That's because the username didn't exist until three years after you joined the site
Touche! Not too bad of estimating on my part. Haha. That being said, looking through a history of his posts the same would be said even if his account was 8 years old. Compare to someone like camhead who regularly posts to other forums on thissite.

I've got a variety of other things going on in my life and when I come to the knob I just want to hang out with my imaginary internet friends. I'm knot here to entertain ewe!

And for the record, my last account was a "supporting member". I'd be happy to pay ~$35-50 per year a la NPR. It may not be a huge revenue stream but it seemed strange that with all the whining about money that such a simple, voluntary route would be eschewed.


meatbomz


Feb 9, 2011, 5:40 AM
Post #85 of 147 (2041 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

     Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

k.l.k wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

all i can hear is

In reply to:
blah, blah blah, petz, bakingz, gardenz, when's jack gonna post?

it's funny because it's true


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 5:48 AM
Post #86 of 147 (2030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
But there are others who keep essentially all their posting confined to those threads - and that's a real waste.

Whoo! that's ME!


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 5:49 AM
Post #87 of 147 (2027 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26585

     Re: [meatbomz] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

meatbomz wrote:
I've got a variety of other things going on in my life and when I come to the knob I just want to hang out with my imaginary internet friends. I'm knot here to entertain ewe!

Okay everyone - it's time for a moments silence for meatbombz's dignity.

*br br brrrrr br br brrrrrrrr*

But seriously, this is a climbing site. Not some "hi guys!" chat site. I think that we should not only ban JT and Curt and PTC, but also anyone that seems to be having too much fun. Climbing is NOT ABOUT FUN. It is about knots, grades, funky metal things, the gunks and strangely coloured shoes.


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 5:53 AM
Post #88 of 147 (2024 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

spikeddem wrote:

That being said, I'm sure you're all swell people, and would be fun to camp and climb with in real life.

rong!


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 6:00 AM
Post #90 of 147 (2012 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:

indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.

You read that thing?

not very often.. i pop in once in a while to see what is going on.. the last time i did it was them counting and saying PC++ ++++ ++++++ for like 100 pages..

I can't imagine where they might have learned this

i was not around for the beginnings of BET so i don't know how much of that was in the beginning.

Every BET style thread goes through the same growing spurts. SPCI must be in the pre-adolescent stage where bukkake icons reign heavy. Soon there will be a bromance stage with weekend climbing outings, maybe a few bike rides. And then the breakup...


imnotclever


Feb 9, 2011, 6:02 AM
Post #91 of 147 (2006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

     Re: [blondgecko] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

blondgecko wrote:
Khoi wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
Khoi wrote:
What is BET???

It is a group of very bad people. Look away!

That doesn't tell me what it is.

You know that thread in the Campground labelled "You are not wanted here"? The one with 60,000-odd posts in it?

Yeah, that's them.

now why did you go and do that?


airscape


Feb 9, 2011, 6:03 AM
Post #92 of 147 (2003 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

     Re: [sungam] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

sungam wrote:
meatbomz wrote:
I've got a variety of other things going on in my life and when I come to the knob I just want to hang out with my imaginary internet friends. I'm knot here to entertain ewe!

Okay everyone - it's time for a moments silence for meatbombz's dignity.

*br br brrrrr br br brrrrrrrr*

But seriously, this is a climbing site. Not some "hi guys!" chat site. I think that we should not only ban JT and Curt and PTC, but also anyone that seems to be having too much fun. Climbing is NOT ABOUT FUN. It is about knots, grades, funky metal things, the gunks and strangely coloured shoes.

Also there is some irish or welsh bloke in one of those threads posting about dark matters and maths and working for free (<--Communist!!).

That is also totally inappropriate.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 6:21 AM
Post #93 of 147 (1991 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26585

     Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

jakedatc wrote:
indeed. How about compare the actual climbing content discussed in You are not Wanted VS SPCI? hmm.. Kartessa's random babblings to herself for 2 pages in a row mighhhht hurt them. And that whole race to x000 posts by doing 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 etc down a page might sting.

we do have content. you (spike) are just not wanted.
Yes, the pci went downhill with the loss of Laz, and I'm sorry to admit, Wolfy. I actually get a little frustrated about not being able to talk about normal shit (ie something not aimed at boosting the PC) in there sometimes.
This may sound ironic coming from me of all people, but I'm kinda "over" the PC race. I'm still butthurt that I'm a way down in 5th or whatever it is now, though.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 6:24 AM
Post #94 of 147 (1988 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26585

     Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

I felt offended by his signature slandering Sungam. Ad Hominem attacks in sigs should be a banzable offense.
Yes. yes! Banz him nao!

Ad hominem attacks in sig lines should not be tolerated!



Wait, what? AB, are you defending my honour? How genteel of you.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 6:28 AM
Post #95 of 147 (1983 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26585

     Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

caughtinside wrote:
What about drivel? That dude is a n00b.
So it IS a dude? I knew it awl along!
caughtinside wrote:
well don't be fooled. We held the Coffee Shop's head under water until their legs stopped moving.
HAH!


notapplicable


Feb 9, 2011, 7:04 AM
Post #97 of 147 (1956 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

     Re: [sungam] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

sungam wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
Meanwhile, you have a personal attack lodged in your signature. You should be BANZed. You are probably not a swell person.

I felt offended by his signature slandering Sungam. Ad Hominem attacks in sigs should be a banzable offense.
Yes. yes! Banz him nao!

Ad hominem attacks in sig lines should not be tolerated!



Wait, what? AB, are you defending my honour? How genteel of you.

If his sig. warrants banzing, you have to go as well. Then the two of you can suck alot, together, somewhere else. where I don't have to hear about it.


tripperjm


Feb 9, 2011, 7:05 AM
Post #99 of 147 (1952 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 10611

     Re: [meatbomz] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
 

meatbomz wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

Ironically, the BET group has had more climbing trips, weekends and unofficial gatherings than most other areas on the site. There are groups of 3-5 who regularly climb together a few times a month(or more) in 3 separate parts of the country.

included in the normal chatter there are trip reports, photos, gear reviews, and other climbing discussion. As far as i can tell the member with the least experience is still around 10 years.

since you are not included in the climbing trips, climbing discussion or much else perhaps you should re-read the thread title and OP?

all i can hear is

In reply to:
blah, blah blah, petz, bakingz, gardenz, when's jack gonna post?

it's funny because it's true

Even though I rule with an iron fist... My people, they lurve me.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook