|
blowboarder
Feb 19, 2005, 5:36 PM
Post #127 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2005
Posts: 681
|
In reply to: Wanna touch my monkey..? 8^)
Sure, anytime...
With a blow torch. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Feb 19, 2005, 5:58 PM
Post #128 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
i just wanna know what the fuck happened. the fact is this site does jack shit to preserve or gain access to crags has started to piss me off, given the resources and scope... the most that's done is posting a link to the queen creek situation on the front page. even if you don't think qc has a snowballs chance, you've got to admit that it'd be even more bleak without curt's efforts. i'm sorry i've ever given money to this place, i feel like a fool.
and it's not like it's a witch hunt for the person who tarpitted him. i just find it odd, that someone who is presumably operating under the code of conduct set in place by the site wouldn't own up to it publicly..
all you people fuckin suck.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Feb 19, 2005, 6:19 PM
Post #129 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
...uhhh...
...help me here...is this the internet....or did I stumble into some place that matters?
.....I'm going to start taking myself more seriously now...excuse me.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpergirl
Feb 19, 2005, 6:20 PM
Post #130 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2004
Posts: 1128
|
You bet I fucking suck.
:twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
amber
Feb 19, 2005, 7:39 PM
Post #132 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Posts: 708
|
In reply to: Apostate mods are funny.
Why limit yourself to apostate mods? I think we all provide amusing reflections in the proverbial circus mirror.
In reply to: All you folks who think wreck.climbing or supertaco is is better/worse/whatever... whyn't you try swimming with the sharks for a few months, see how you feel then?
Personally, I dont think they're better or worse, just different. She posted a question of what it would be like to have unmoderated sites, and I responded with a couple of examples. I lurk on both and think they do a good job of self-moderating. I just dont bother posting because I'm trying to quit this nasty internet habit that I've got going.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Feb 19, 2005, 7:58 PM
Post #134 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
...how about exorcised?
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Feb 19, 2005, 8:12 PM
Post #135 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
In reply to: ...how about exorcised?
No I never exorcise.
Which explains the spare tire around my midsection.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Feb 19, 2005, 8:18 PM
Post #136 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
edge wrote:
In reply to: No I never exorcise. Which explains the spare tire around my midsection.
...thats what I mean...you need to take yourself more seriously....spelling nazis are buzz killers...now take your crap and go home...leave this site to the serious...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 19, 2005, 9:09 PM
Post #137 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think it would be a very interesting exeperiment to see what would evolve out of zero moderation check out supertaco or wreckdotclimbing. actually, wreckdotclimbing would probably be best.
http://joshuatreeclimb.com/forums/joshuatreeclimb/
Check it out. It speaks for itself.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 19, 2005, 9:23 PM
Post #138 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: This rumor about Curt's having been tarpitted because he offended an advertiser was invented by you in the following quoted post. In reply to: In reply to: What they were thinking was *probably* something like this: "Oh, wow.... Curt's comments to this other user are way out of line, and they violate the TOS. Curt has been warned before about this sort of thing, yet he's still doing it. I'll consult with the other mods, ask them for input, and then decide on an appropriate action. In the meantime, I'll ask Curt to refrain from making such offensive and inappropriate posts." Or something like that. Actually, from reading between the lines, it was probably something closer to, "Oh s---. Curt has pissed off (insert advertiser name). Christ, what am I going to do. We need to shut him up - quick! Wait. I'll post in M&E asking for support in tarpitting him and then send him a warning." -Jay Forgive me for putting two and two together. Let me break it down for you. First, we're told that Curt was tarpitted for being offensive towards a 'user'. Nevermind the fact that a moderator is allowed to make personal digs towards a user who isnt here, mostly because I doubt much will be done about it. Yay nepotism. [blah, blah, blah]
Amber, your convoluted theory violates Occam's Razor grossly. The simplest, and in this case correct, model that explains the facts is this:
1. Curt was tarpitted for making one or more very offensive attacks against Matt personally.
2. The thread was removed, apparently, because it was potentially damaging to a business relationship.
If you wish to continue to imagine that Curt was tarpitted because of comments about R + I that is your prerogative; however, quite frankly, you are looking a bit foolish for it.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Feb 19, 2005, 9:31 PM
Post #139 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
In reply to: ...uhhh... ...help me here...is this the internet....or did I stumble into some place that matters? .....I'm going to start taking myself more seriously now...excuse me.
we have a weiner!!!!!.........what could be wurst!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Feb 19, 2005, 9:34 PM
Post #140 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
...this one time when I was little...I got mad during a backyard baseball game so I took my bat and ball and went inside. My mom was upset that my brother was mean to me...but none of the other kids cared....
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 19, 2005, 9:58 PM
Post #141 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Then perhaps management should organize a better response and stop being so damned secretive about everything. Maybe they should, but that doesn't justify what you did. This rumor about Curt's having been tarpitted because he offended an advertiser was invented by you in the following quoted post. -Jay Samet was no better, and you'd think he would know better. After all, he actually *is* a representitive of a climbing business entity.
Indeed I posted as much in that thread.
In reply to: You flip flop a bit... Am I the only one who thinks that's amusing?
I haven't flip-flopped at all. Management has always followed the policy of not explaining specifically why action has been taken against a user. Their response has always been generic: violations of the ToS. I'm not sure what the history of that policy has been, but I think it dates back to one or more cases of eggregious and possibly criminal violations of the ToS, which the site couldn't really spell out publicly. Since then, if I am not mistaken, it has always been a policy not to give the specifics when actions are taken against users. That's probably not a bad policy in general, since usually, either the user's actions leading to the tarpit were publicly visible or, more rarely, they involved allegations too serious to publicly state. However, this case falls into neither category: neither are the offending posts visible, nor was the offense extreme. And so the conspiracy theorists have a field day. So, in unusual cases such as this, perhaps management should make a clear, concise, official statement explaining why the action was taken.
In reply to: After all, I'd bet going to New Jack that you for one know the whole story.
What I know is that at least one moderator was very concerned about certain specific, offensive statements, which were pointed out to me, which Curt made about Matt; and it was later stated to me that it was those "below-the-belt" statements that were why Curt was tarpitted. I wasn't following the thread carefully and did not see any statements by anyone that would be particularly damaging to any potential business dealings between this website and R + I, nor do I have any knowledge about said business relationship, potential or existing. Thus, I do not know the whole story. I'll be at New Jack on Saturday at 9:30 a.m. You can belay me on The Action.
In reply to: The tarpitting person should take his knocks, and maybe the rule should be "he who tarpits is known".
The moderator who actually "throws the switch" isn't the issue. You can assume that if someone gets tarpitted that there is a concensus about it among the Mods, and in particular, that Phil concurs. If you want someone to point a finger at, it should be him, since he is in charge of the mods.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
amber
Feb 19, 2005, 10:23 PM
Post #142 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Posts: 708
|
In reply to: Amber, your convoluted theory violates Occam's Razor grossly. The simplest, and in this case correct, model that explains the facts is this: 1. Curt was tarpitted for making one or more very offensive attacks against Matt personally. 2. The thread was removed, apparently, because it was potentially damaging to a business relationship. If you wish to continue to imagine that Curt was tarpitted because of comments about R + I that is your prerogative; however, quite frankly, you are looking a bit foolish for it. -Jay
Hi Jay,
Thanks so much for your inquiry. Unfortunately, I am a tool who is unafraid to question theories set before me, and I am willing to continue pushing the envelope and asking questions until things make sense. Further, I'm not the only one who felt that things were suspicious.
To save some space, I'll just refer you to my last response to Reno. As I mentioned there, I received responses from moderators who were willing to admit that the answers from perhaps well-meaning individuals made things seem suspicious. (Though, I still think that if the argument had been with someone of lesser caliber than Matt Samet, himself, the situation would have turned out differently .. but I digress.)
To make things seem less dramatic in the future, perhaps it would be wise for management to get off its information high-horse and recruit someone who can respond with accurate, articulate information that doesnt make things seem quite so suspicious. It would also help if staff were held to some sort of standard regarding their treatment of users. You see, it's really difficult to believe that rc.com really gives a damn about 'protecting' a user who's been banned or tarpitted when other members of staff are making slams against users on a near constant basis.
Finally, I stand by my belief that it is incredibly lame for rc.com to move/delete threads, pull forums, and/or discipline users in order to save face with an advertiser. Though, if this really wasnt about nepotism towards an advertiser, then why was the CCH thread allowed to propagate when the R&I thread was crushed? Then again, I think the CCH threads were an excellent example of letting manufacturers and an exceptional product combat bogus complaints without site management's beloved intervention.
Thanks again for your time.
Best regards,
amber
PS. If the above post was simply made in hopes that I will bikini mud wrestle your ass to the ground, then bring it. Though, I insist that Curt be there with his scotch and Hill be there will the camera.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 19, 2005, 11:28 PM
Post #144 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: PS. If the above post was simply made in hopes that I will bikini mud wrestle your ass to the ground, then bring it.
So far I've won a free day of belaying from Murf and a naked mud wrestling session with Amber. I should participate more regularly in these conspiracy threads.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
crimpergirl
Feb 20, 2005, 12:03 AM
Post #145 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2004
Posts: 1128
|
Ahhhhhh.
Climax at last!
Thank God - the sexual tension was getting to be waaaaay to much for me to handle.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 20, 2005, 12:32 AM
Post #146 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: - but future dramas could likely be squelched if questions could simply be answered in the way that you've described above: clear and concise. No BS about business dealings at stake or high school libraries to protect. Just someone with access to all of the privy information who can field questions accurately and articulately without making excuses that end up making the entire situation seem substantially more incestuous than it actually is.
I'd like to see such a set-up as well, but as always, there are hurdles... if you have solutions for these, let's hear 'em:
1. Who?
2. Where do you draw the line between posting the details for "minor" offenses and "major offenses"? If a user is Tarpitted for a post that violates the law (i.e. a user solicits sex from a minor,) should that get aired? What about a user who posts porn? What if it's child porn? What if it's bestiality? Should the staff state "Climber-So-and-So was TP'd for posting pics of minors involved in sexual acts?" What is the liability for the website? What would we do if we get a subpoena to testify? Would every user who saw the pic before it was removed come forth and testify? Is there legal precedent for this?
3. Who makes the decision to air/not air? Should it be committee? If so, should the votes be recorded and released to the public? Should we just say "By a vote of 5-2, the decision has been made to air the cause of Climber-so-and-so's tarpit?" First, who's on the committee? Who selects the committee members? One person? The users as a whole? If it's everyone, what rules are used? Simple majority (as in the case of purly domestic matters)? 51%? Two-thirds (in the event of international affairs?)
4. Who protects the tarpit announcer (lack of a better term) if a lible suit is brought to bear? Who pays for the lawyer? Who selects the lawyer?
5. I could go on, but I've been moving my girlfriend's stuff to her new house all day, and my arms are so sore, I can barely hold my Sierra Nevada, let alone type. But you get the point.
Personally, I'd like to see TPs made public. But as it is now, the policy is to keep such matters private. I think that's OK, too.... "Praise in public, punish in private" is my preferred phrase when passing out punitive penalties or positive platitudes. (Try saying THAT 3 times fast.)
It is quite simple: Any user, no matter who, is held to the TOS. Violate 'em, run the risk of paying the price. What price? Depends on lots of things, and that's why the staff gets paid nothing to make tough decisions.
(And to think, I volunteered for this abuse.)
|
|
|
|
|
hello_heino
Feb 20, 2005, 12:51 AM
Post #147 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 231
|
addressing #3.
Everything should be aired. There is no decision making process involved. It is called: accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 20, 2005, 12:59 AM
Post #148 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: addressing #3. Everything should be aired. There is no decision making process involved. It is called: accountability.
Except that moderators aren't accountable to users. This is a privately owned business that is open to the public for free. So, it is not an accountability issue: management does not owe a duty to explain their actions to people who use the site. On the other hand, being a business that needs users to make money from advertisers, management may have practical reasons for explaining its actions publicly from time to time.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
hello_heino
Feb 20, 2005, 1:02 AM
Post #149 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 231
|
"It is quite simple: Any user, no matter who, is held to the TOS. Violate 'em, run the risk of paying the price. What price? Depends on lots of things, and that's why the staff gets paid nothing to make tough decisions."
Volunteerism is a poor excuse for blindness.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 20, 2005, 2:40 AM
Post #150 of 209
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
That's a question for the management of RC.com to answer. Not users. Depends on the kind of person you want and what you want them to say.
In reply to: 2. Where do you draw the line between posting the details for "minor" offenses and "major offenses"? If a user is Tarpitted for a post that violates the law (i.e. a user solicits sex from a minor,) should that get aired? What about a user who posts porn? What if it's child porn? What if it's bestiality? Should the staff state "Climber-So-and-So was TP'd for posting pics of minors involved in sexual acts?" What is the liability for the website? What would we do if we get a subpoena to testify? Would every user who saw the pic before it was removed come forth and testify? Is there legal precedent for this?
I don't think anyone is asking for the Scarlet Letter here. What I always thought should be appropriate was explicitness of what constitutes what in terms of tarpitting/banning. If you make a concrete process, then it leaves the management accountable and the users accountable.
In reply to: 3. Who makes the decision to air/not air? Should it be committee? If so, should the votes be recorded and released to the public? Should we just say "By a vote of 5-2, the decision has been made to air the cause of Climber-so-and-so's tarpit?" First, who's on the committee? Who selects the committee members? One person? The users as a whole? If it's everyone, what rules are used? Simple majority (as in the case of purly domestic matters)? 51%? Two-thirds (in the event of international affairs?)
Again, if a detailed accountability thing occurred, it wouldn't matter. No airing would be required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
