Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
** Censorship At Rc.com!! **
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All


justsendingits


Aug 13, 2003, 11:41 PM
Post #126 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wow,thanks for the tip on neoprene seals(do they have baby seals?),that could be huge ifin my car breaks down on hyw. 50 in Nevada.Tell me,should I upgrade to neoprene baby seals on my spooge collector??


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 5:16 AM
Post #127 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
"RC.com will be a much better place without YOU as moderator, Andrew Gran. Good frickin' riddance of YOU.

Andrew's response above supports my feelings. It is precisely this type of unprofessional behaviour in moderators - be they former or active - that RC.com needs to eliminate.

Are you suggestioning that because andrew WAS a moderatory that he should be CENSORED :shock: ? Let it all out Andrew, you're one of us now. :wink:


He is just trying to discredit him since one of Pete's buzzwords is "heresay" in response to all the shared opinions of him, in the Valley, at his home in Ontario, around the campfires, and even from most of his former supporters who have finally met him (just like with Andy). But since Andy knows him personally, and is a very respected member of the site, his words carry much wieght, his words are not "hearesay". So Pete's only alternative is to try and discredit him.

How many of those defending him have actually met him, and had to endure his company ??? I can't wait till you get the chance to finally meet him, then you may just be one of the many who are embarrassed to have ever defended him. :roll:


cthcrockclimber


Aug 14, 2003, 5:27 AM
Post #128 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 1007

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have a canker sore in my mouth and I keep poking at it with my tounge, but that's only making it worse!


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 5:29 AM
Post #129 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I have a canker sore in my mouth and I keep poking at it with my tounge, but that's only making it worse!


I hate that !!! Why is it that we cannot stop screwing with it ??? Must be some masicistic urge.


justsendingits


Aug 14, 2003, 5:45 AM
Post #130 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cthcrockclimber wrote:
I have a canker sore in my mouth and I keep poking at it with my tounge, but that's only making it worse!



Now that was funny..I laughed so hard it hurts..timing is everything....


dingus


Aug 14, 2003, 7:55 AM
Post #131 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17392

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I complained about this reprehensible practice after my post regarding beer and bouldering disappeared after one day.

They removed this classic post??? That was the most useful bit of information I ever gleaned off of this forum (seriously, it was).

I swear to god (is that allowed in my TOS?)... this is Middle School administration all over again.

Are we allowed to read Catcher in the Rye?

DMT


dingus


Aug 14, 2003, 7:59 AM
Post #132 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17392

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
because the last thing we need is another mob scene and lynching.

We need more mob scenes and lynchings!!!

The Admin is Dead! Long Live the Admin!

DMT


timstich


Aug 14, 2003, 8:15 AM
Post #133 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 6263

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Are we allowed to read Catcher in the Rye?

DMT

Just tell me this. Where do the ducks go in winter???


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 9:45 AM
Post #134 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
However, with the way in which this was handled, you have reaped what you have sown. Removing a forum after getting in a public pissing match brings the conspiracy theorists out of the wordwork and causes bad feelings all around. Hinting at inappropriate and even illegal behaviour on a poster's part in a public forum without backing it up with facts or proof is totally out of line(even if you say it is to protect other posters anonymity). Posting private messages and drumming up ill will towards the poster is just not kosher when you are an admin.

I don't mean to criticize unfairly(hindsight is 20-20 and it is easier to know what to do when aren't responsible for doing it). For better or worse, when you are a website administrator and wield that power you are held to a different, higher level of conduct. Better to either stay out of the flame war so you can moderate it without the appearance of prejudice, or handle it discreetely with the offending party and let outside people know what is happening without getting into the ugly specifics.

Anyone remember who wrote this?

The problem is that, as long as I've been on this site, there's been this culture of admins and mods getting into personal pissing contests with users, and then using their mod powers in a selective and vindictive manner.

Rrradam, for all his talk, is the king of this type of behavior. He's a hater. He hates PTPP. I privately complained to him about Bluto's innappropriate comment about Pete's "womanizing", and he replied by saying nothing could be done about it because it's "true". Which is beside the point, isn't it? (Did he consult with his fellow whatevers? I don't know, but I doubt it.) Then everybody else piles on with the personal sh*t on Pete and the thread is hijacked.

Tell me how this isn't an example of selective enforcement? How can someone with such an open dislike of a user be left in a position to moderate that person's forum posts?


Here's a productive suggestion: Remove any power by mods to delete or edit threads or individual posts. Mods have always had the power to move threads, which is fine, but they shouldn't be able to move individual posts. These powers should be the absolute last resort and only excercisable by an admin after proper consideration.

If a mod sees a thread going "bad", they should have the power to lock the thread pending review. If it appears to be "objectional material (i.e. porn) then the thread should be locked so it can't be read by users pending review. That way, everything is always intact, as written by users, and can be dealt with properly. Moving it to archives is also an option.


atg200


Aug 14, 2003, 9:49 AM
Post #135 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i remember who wrote that...

and i love not being an admin/mod anymore so i can get into those pissing matches without being a hypocrite.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 10:04 AM
Post #136 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Funny Stu how you "trust that I will not share your opinion of a 'certain person' ( :wink: )" in public, and I assured you that I would not, yet you use "selective" bits of our PMs to slam me.

Either post it all, both your's and mine, so as not to take things out of context, of post none. And just in case you want to say that you deleted them, so you can't... I can resend all of them to you, as they are still in my "sentbox", and your's to me will be in yours. :roll:


In reply to:
Removing a forum after getting in a public pissing match brings the conspiracy theorists out of the wordwork...


This has always been you brutha.


justsendingits


Aug 14, 2003, 10:15 AM
Post #137 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Meanwhile,back at the ranch---------

















.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 10:17 AM
Post #138 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Adam - I simply paraphrased your response to my complaint. Was it not accurate? Can you tell us what exactly the admins' position is on Bluto's post?

Go ahead and post our PM's, I don't give a fuck. I care not in the least about Pete's personal life or anyone else's around here. I am trying to make a point, see above. I deserve a straight answer, which from you, Rrradam, is like getting blood from a turnip. Anybody?


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 10:23 AM
Post #139 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Here's a productive suggestion: Remove any power by mods to delete or edit threads or individual posts. Mods have always had the power to move threads, which is fine, but they shouldn't be able to move individual posts. These powers should be the absolute last resort and only excercisable by an admin after proper consideration.

If a mod sees a thread going "bad", they should have the power to lock the thread pending review. If it appears to be "objectional material (i.e. porn) then the thread should be locked so it can't be read by users pending review. That way, everything is always intact, as written by users, and can be dealt with properly.

I'd like to get some feedback on this too. This is a simple, workable reform that should be put into effect immediately. Does anyone disagree?


jabtocrag


Aug 14, 2003, 10:23 AM
Post #140 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Go ahead and post our PM's, I don't give a fuck.

Dig your method to bypass the filter!!


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 10:27 AM
Post #141 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Go ahead and post our PM's, I don't give a fuck.

Dig your method to bypass the filter!!

Pretty slick, eh? I didn't come up with it.


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 10:29 AM
Post #142 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

We don't have any issue on Bluto's post, as it doesn't need any thought...

You have a problem with somethjng in which he stated in a public thread that has been discussed in many public threads here on this site. So to use your exact words Stu... "he 'is paraphrasing' what he has read here, and believes to be true."


Can you follow that ??? Just because you did not get the response you wanted does not mean that there is a conspiracey... Unfortunately, the many times that Stu has not gotten his way here, he has thropwn a fit, and all the same "buzzwords" I noted on a previous page in this thread. If you disagree, please tell me just one instance where you did not get your way, and were OK with it. Just one brutha... Shouldn't be hard if you were able to dig up a long lost post by Andrew. :roll:


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 10:32 AM
Post #143 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Here's a productive suggestion: Remove any power by mods to delete or edit threads or individual posts. Mods have always had the power to move threads, which is fine, but they shouldn't be able to move individual posts. These powers should be the absolute last resort and only excercisable by an admin after proper consideration.

If a mod sees a thread going "bad", they should have the power to lock the thread pending review. If it appears to be "objectional material (i.e. porn) then the thread should be locked so it can't be read by users pending review. That way, everything is always intact, as written by users, and can be dealt with properly.

I'd like to get some feedback on this too. This is a simple, workable reform that should be put into effect immediately. Does anyone disagree?


That's simple Stu... There are many more Mods than Admins, and they are almost always online... If someone comes to the site and as just one example, SPAMs the site with "outwar" links to build their character, like has been done numerous times before, they need to be able to delete them.


I asked for reasonable suggestions Stu.


alpnclmbr1


Aug 14, 2003, 10:43 AM
Post #144 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 3060

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:

.... (In fact posts themselves don't get deleted anymore; they get marked as 'suppress' in case they need to be resurrected for exactly this type of situation).

(snip) All of the involved posts are actually still in the database; I am trying to determine unequivocally what happened (snip)

Moreover, I want to get full auditing set up for the process so that this never happens again.

As far as pete getting a hard time, what goes around comes around.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 11:24 AM
Post #145 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
We don't have any issue on Bluto's post, as it doesn't need any thought...

You have a problem with somethjng in which he stated in a public thread that has been discussed in many public threads here on this site. So to use your exact words Stu... "he 'is paraphrasing' what he has read here, and believes to be true."
So your official position is that a personal attack, no motter how off-topic, inflammatory or disruptive, is OK as long as it employs content already available on the site (making it redundant as well as all the above)?

In reply to:
Can you follow that ??? Just because you did not get the response you wanted does not mean that there is a conspiracey... Unfortunately, the many times that Stu has not gotten his way here, he has thropwn a fit, and all the same "buzzwords" I noted on a previous page in this thread. If you disagree, please tell me just one instance where you did not get your way, and were OK with it. Just one brutha... Shouldn't be hard if you were able to dig up a long lost post by Andrew. :roll:

Typical fucking Rrradam rhetoric. Throw up some BS, then ask questions or make personal challenges toward his questioner which have nothing to do with anything. A greedy, brain-damaged little punk who thinks he's Machiavellii or somebody. (See, that's OK to say cuz I'm just paraphrasing stuff I've read in the forums.)

Tim? Somebody? Explain how this statement:

In reply to:
In addition to dubious behavior noted above you have committed some reprehensible acts regarding women on this site, the details of which many are aware.

Persons with little or no ethics or integrity have no right to question others.

passes muster under this standard:

In reply to:
Hate posts and personal attacks will not be tolerated on the Rockclimbing.com Forums. Treat others on these message boards as you would like to be treated. Personal attacks on another user are a great way to earn some time off, as is posting inflammatory material specifically to provoke a negative response from someone (aka trolling). If you are unclear about what a 'troll' is, an excellent description can be found here.

While we realize that this can become somewhat subjective, excessive mudslinging (not debate, but unbridled flaming) drives away many users - we are not trying to stifle debate, but users whose behavior consistently reduces the overall value of the site (to its owners, advertisers, and users) are not welcome.

I've asked this question over and over and it deserves a better response than Rrradsputin's tedious double-talk. Is this just a business decision you guys make? If a vicious personal attack is made, it's OK as long as it doesn't affect the value of your investment (presumably reducing its negative value)?

I don't suspect a conspiracy. I know what I've seen with my own eyes, on this site and in person.


gravitysucks


Aug 14, 2003, 11:24 AM
Post #146 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 147

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Are we allowed to read Catcher in the Rye?

DMT

Just tell me this. Where do the ducks go in winter???


"The Catcher in the Rye is the book preferred 9 times out of ten by whackos, serial killers, and disgruntled teenagers."

dingus, i've got my paperback all marked up and highlighted so they'll know which passages to admit into evidence when I(i) have my sociopathic epiphany.

tim...i've heard rumours :wink: that SOMEONE comes around in a truck and takes them all away.... but the feeshes...oh that IS a much sadder story.

rich...what kind of cookies man?...


p.s. anyone know what the other 1 out of 10 prefers?


:roll: :? :shock: :wink:


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 11:34 AM
Post #147 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Again... I'm sorry that you feel that since you didn't get your way, and our response is not as you like. Fact is, a user who regularly casts stones, got one thrown his way in a thread where he himself was casting stones, and you are upset that it was thrown, and since you didn't get your way, it is all a conspiracey to you.

Like I asked Stu, if this is not the case, PLEASE (I'm begging dude, where's the begging smiley?), show me just one example here where you did not get your way, and dit not throw a tantrum... JUST ONE !!! It's a simple chalenge Stu... And is "on topic" to this discussion at hand, as I am showing your MO... You are throwing a tantrum because your unreasonable request was not met.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 11:37 AM
Post #148 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
PLEASE (I'm begging dude, where's the begging smiley?), show me just one example here where you did not get your way, and dit not throw a tantrum... JUST ONE !!!

Q.E.D.


theooze


Aug 14, 2003, 11:43 AM
Post #149 of 266 (16256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619

** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
That's simple Stu... There are many more Mods than Admins, and they are almost always online... If someone comes to the site and as just one example, SPAMs the site with "outwar" links to build their character, like has been done numerous times before, they need to be able to delete them.

Up until this year, it was a widely held belief around here that posts should NEVER be deleted (by mods). Does anyone here disagree with that statement?


Partner rrrADAM


Aug 14, 2003, 11:47 AM
Post #150 of 266 (16253 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: ** Censorship At Rc.com!! ** [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Not totally true... Mods have always been able to delete, but we frown on deleting anything which may have historical value. No matter how trivial... SPAM does not have this value.

You are "splitting hairs" dude, as outright SPAM should be deleted, I think even you would agree to that.


I am done here Stu... You being a lawyer, I am disappointed in you, as your logic is unreasonable, and you simply want to "split hairs". Split them by yourself.


If you have a reasonable concern, I will gladly discuss it with you... But I have more patience with my 3 year old niece asking me "why ???", than I do a man in his 40's doing it just to be a pill.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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