|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 20, 2005, 6:39 AM
Post #151 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: 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.
Ya just simply can not write down all the things someone could do that would/could violate the TOS, say "These will get you a TP," and think it's gonna solve all problems. The moment you do, people will start finding ways to skirt the "rules." Then, when you try to whack 'em on the nose for it, they'll say "But it ain't expressly prohibited by the TOS, so I'm free and clear."
Rather, what you do is set forth a foundation of principles, ask people to try to adhere to those principles, and use your best judgement on when those principles have been violated to an egregious enough degree to warrant tarpit.
Like the cops in a big city... they selectively enforce the law, based on the seriousness of the crime. What is serious to one is minor to another (e.g., A cop in ATL catches you with a half-burned joint. He makes you crush it, and dump it in the storm drain. But if he catches you with a pound of Colombian Gold weed, you've got a jail waiting. One is minor, one is serious. Difference of degrees.)
I get your point, Mac, but I don't think it's logistically feasable.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 20, 2005, 7:03 AM
Post #152 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
I dunno, Reno. I was admin/mod for a pretty good amount of time, I seriously think it could be done effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Feb 20, 2005, 2:14 PM
Post #153 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: 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
When the powers to be begin to turn towards greed, and the greed begins to control the membership, the end is near!
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Feb 20, 2005, 3:50 PM
Post #154 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
In reply to: Herein lies the crux of it all, because unlike many of the Mods & Admins, some of us actually are paying members! As a paying member, the management does have a higher ( albeit limted) accountability requirement, in order to appease a specific portion of the membership base that does financially contribute to the operation of RC. If the overall attitude is "screw the members, we don't have to answer to you ever", then you'll ultimately be left with a flailing site... Sad as it is, this is precisely what has caused the vast majority of splits and closures of online communities of just about every nature. |
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Feb 20, 2005, 4:03 PM
Post #155 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
So.....then I am thinking....when Curt used to get inflammatory with Joe Blow, it was like he was puffing on a roach. But this time, it was like he was trying to sell dope to an undercover cop on the Atlanta vice squad....?
(This is a rhetorical question - no need to be adressed.)
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Feb 20, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #156 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Correct!
I'm also reminded of when DJMeat was viciously attacking and slandering another member, yet only ever received kind and gentle warnings because the powers to be said he "never really violated the beloved TOS"... Which he absolutely did! :boring:
|
|
|
|
|
iltripp
Feb 20, 2005, 4:51 PM
Post #157 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1607
|
In reply to: Correct! I'm also reminded of when DJMeat was viciously attacking and slandering another member, yet only ever received kind and gentle warnings because the powers to be said he " never really violated the beloved TOS"... Which he absolutely did! :boring:
Wouldn't that also make you deserving of a tarpit concerning your treatment of Mr. Meat?
|
|
|
|
|
amber
Feb 20, 2005, 5:04 PM
Post #158 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Posts: 708
|
In reply to: I dunno, Reno. I was admin/mod for a pretty good amount of time, I seriously think it could be done effectively.
To save myself some typing, I'm going to say that I agree with the posts that maculated made on the previous page.
While I will admit that not all of the staff are power-hungry control freaks, it seems like a lot of the people who ARENT information control freaks are stepping down because they're tired of the turmoil caused by said control freaks.
There are also plenty of people around here who can see through the thinly-veiled excuses that basically boil down to the fact that some of the people on staff deeply cherish the fact that they get to be in on a secret that greater majority does not know.
Finally, there are a lot of really intelligent people around here who are probably used to dealing with situations where multiple interests are at stake and must be navigated. Seriously, providing concise, yet honest and articulate answers to pointed questions really isnt THAT complicated of a task.
The "complications" arise because we have people in positions of feigned authority who are resistant to change and enjoy the current policies of secrecy and information whoring. Hell, no one even knows WHY the secrecy policy exists, they just accept it and delight in feeling like they're privy to special information.
As for making suggestions of specific people, I've made my suggestions. However, since secrecy policies reign supreme around here, I will not tell you to whom I made my suggestions nor will I admit who was recommended.
PS. Jay, I said bikini wrestling, not nekkid wrestling.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Feb 20, 2005, 5:16 PM
Post #159 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: Correct! I'm also reminded of when DJMeat was viciously attacking and slandering another member, yet only ever received kind and gentle warnings because the powers to be said he " never really violated the beloved TOS"... Which he absolutely did! :boring: Wouldn't that also make you deserving of a tarpit concerning your treatment of Mr. Meat?
Next time, get ALL the facts before you post as if you knew them! :?
|
|
|
|
|
iltripp
Feb 20, 2005, 7:12 PM
Post #160 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1607
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Correct! I'm also reminded of when DJMeat was viciously attacking and slandering another member, yet only ever received kind and gentle warnings because the powers to be said he " never really violated the beloved TOS"... Which he absolutely did! :boring: Wouldn't that also make you deserving of a tarpit concerning your treatment of Mr. Meat? Funny that you would mention that, because I was threatenened within an inch of my life by several of the admins, BEFORE they had the actual facts pertaining to said situation. Even after that, it seemed that Todd had no problem escalating situations with numerous members, they crying foul each and every time he had his ass handed to him by the friends of those he so viciously attacked. :shock: Next time, get ALL the facts before you post as if you knew them! :?
I never posted as if I knew "ALL the facts". I'm only calling it how i saw it. I never said DJmeat didn't deserve it, only that you and many others were also culpable and would have been equally deserving of a tarpit if the "personal attack" rules were rigorously enforced.
As you said yourself, "he had his ass handed to him by the friends of those he so viciously attacked". While DJmeat may have been the proverbial whiny, obnoxious brat, you played the part of the schoolyard bully rather well.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Feb 20, 2005, 7:15 PM
Post #161 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: ( blah, blah, blah)...you played the part of the schoolyard bully rather well. |
|
|
|
|
apolobamba
Feb 20, 2005, 9:56 PM
Post #162 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 337
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Feb 20, 2005, 9:58 PM
Post #163 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: Goodbye to all of you that actually climb and all of you that I haved climbed with. |
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 21, 2005, 1:06 AM
Post #164 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: PS. Jay, I said bikini wrestling, not nekkid wrestling.
So you claim. It might just come to pass that your post mysteriously disappears, and the only remaining evidence will by my post, which clearly states "naked" wrestling.
Besides, there's no way I'm wearing a bikini.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 21, 2005, 1:09 AM
Post #165 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: PS. Jay, I said bikini wrestling, not nekkid wrestling. So you claim. It might just come to pass that your post mysteriously disappears, and the only remaining evidence will by my post, which clearly states "naked" wrestling. Besides, there's no way I'm wearing a bikini. -Jay honesty in quoting, eh?
I haven't quoted anybody.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
amber
Feb 21, 2005, 1:09 AM
Post #166 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Posts: 708
|
In reply to: In reply to: PS. Jay, I said bikini wrestling, not nekkid wrestling. So you claim. It might just come to pass that your post mysteriously disappears, and the only remaining evidence will by my post, which clearly states "naked" wrestling. Besides, there's no way I'm wearing a bikini. -Jay
honesty in quoting, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Feb 21, 2005, 1:53 AM
Post #167 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Thank goodnes for Jays voice of reason. You rool Jay.
Psssst, send me the pics of the nekkid jello wrestling eh.
|
|
|
|
|
amber
Feb 21, 2005, 1:56 AM
Post #168 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Posts: 708
|
whoa. the posts are out of order again.
well .. that, or jay saw my response coming from a mile away.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Feb 21, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #169 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: After all, I'd bet going to New Jack that you for one know the whole story.
In reply to: 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.
Without refering to the specific post, a moderater pointed out a different version of this. A mod gets an idea of tarpitting someone and then runs it around a mod only forum. Regardless of the feedback, that mod can go ahead and tarpit the individual. The quote specifically mentioned that "consensus" is not needed.
Its too bad Curt deleted his piccy's, I enjoyed them. I'm always amused when the "management" PM's folks like amber to "let the issue lie". It gives it that cool "wrapped in secrecy" look thats so in.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 21, 2005, 5:49 PM
Post #170 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
The few times I have posted in drama threads such as this, I have always supported the mods and admins. I've never had an issue with them. But this is just comical.
Folks, you run a web site. You are in the public relations business. Do you even have a PR or communications professional on the team? Cause you certainly operate as though you have absolutely no clue how to do PR. Where's the coordinated, well thought out communication of what was done and why, explained clearly within the context of the site rules? (Hint: if you can't explain it clearly within the context of the site rules, you might want to consider that you have another agenda at play, not saying that is the case with this incident, just pointing out that you have a simple analysis technique at your disposal for examining your own motivations.)
In this thread we have multiple site representatives giving ad hoc responses, trying to explain a situation for which they seem to not even have all the facts, and even lobbing personal attacks and insults in the process. Incompetent, is about the nicest word I could use to describe the performance here.
You guys really need someone with the appropriate skills/knowledge in communications, and you need a defined process for communications in disciplinary situations, one that can be invoked rapidly and applied consistently. There you go, free consultation. My clients spend hundreds of dollars an hour for advice like that.
I'm sorry to see Curt go. He was the only conservative on this site who could engage in intelligent political debate using sound logic and fact-based reasoning, all the while maintaining intellectual honesty. I enjoyed our head-butting.
I think you are hiding behind your statements that "Curt decided to leave", as though you weren't the party on the other side of a dispute. Sure he decided to leave, but I'm starting to see the trend that others have pointed out - this site is descending into lameness. I don't spend much time here anymore, but for the occasional drive-by posting. This place just isn't interesting enough to draw my attention like it used to. Thank goodness blowboarder showed up to stir things up (and promptly get tar-pitted :lol: ).
But seriously, back to that free advice I gave you. You guys should really get your act together. I think you'll find that you'll waste a lot less time and energy if you can execute to a well-defined communications process, and your communications process and disciplinary process should be integrated. (Man, I gotta stop giving this stuff away for free.)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 21, 2005, 6:08 PM
Post #171 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I understand the desire for consistency, but really, its impossible, especially in the realm of a volunteer committee.
I have come to the opinion that what moderation/censorship this sort of site requires is best dispensed by a benevolent dictator. That person, wielding the authority of the King, imposes a kind justice for the good of the realm.
Now the King may be as Mad as a Hatter, it matters not! The King should employ Whack-A-Mole moderation and whack without warning, any thread that displeases her sense of wah!
No explanations unless the King is amused by offering one. No consistency, since when do Kings delude themselves with that tripe? They know that consistency doesn't even exist, or they would not be King! (I know, lousy grammer, so sue me)
King is negotiating with the supreme leader of a neighboring Kingdom and one of his subjects gets out of line? WHACK! No explanation, no nothing, just WHACK! Throw in the dungeon, slick as you please.
The conspiracy theories get too deep? Whack! No explanation, no nothing.
King's friend gets out of line? Too bad, that's what being the King's friend entails; latitude. You should be around the King when she gets mad! Then you'd know that being friend to the King isn't all its whacked up to be.
King goes on Vacay? No moderation for you!
See, it should be arbitrary and capricious, a child of whim, an instrument of chaos.
The subjects should never know from where the hammer will be swung or which mole is about to get whacked. We should just know... it could be us next.
But its gotta be a Solomon sort, this benevolent dictator...
Who among us could rise to the Golden Rule Rock Climbing Dot Calm Throne???
And who would seek to usurp it?
Tarpit the TOS. Reinstitute the King!
Then we conspiracy folks would have something to do!
The King is dead. Long live the King.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
blowboarder
Feb 21, 2005, 6:18 PM
Post #172 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2005
Posts: 681
|
In reply to: You guys really need someone with the appropriate skills/knowledge in communications, and you need a defined process for communications in disciplinary situations, one that can be invoked rapidly and applied consistently.
And I'm here for you. Simply ask and I'll respond to the call of duty. :lol:
I'n honor of GrandePeter laying out some free advice, I'll throw down a free outline of how it will go.
Religious debates? Tarpit!
Political debates? Tarpit!
Dirtineye? Tarpit!
Grammar Nazi's? Tarpit!
Not posting pic's of hot chicks at least once a post? Double Tarpit!
Current Mod's and Admins? Tarpit!!!!
Talking climbing in Scummunity? Eternal Tarpit!!!!
Dr. Kodos? Out of the Tarpit and a lifetime Tarpit exemption!!
There's more, that's all you get for now.
Show me the money!
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Feb 21, 2005, 6:25 PM
Post #173 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: I'm sorry to see Curt go. He was the only conservative on this site who could engage in intelligent political debate using sound logic and fact-based reasoning, all the while maintaining intellectual honesty. I enjoyed our head-butting. |
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Feb 21, 2005, 6:43 PM
Post #174 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
[quote="blowboarder"And I'm here for you. Simply ask and I'll respond to the call of duty. :lol:
I'n honor of GrandePeter laying out some free advice, I'll throw down a free outline of how it will go.
Dirtineye? Tarpit!
Bite me.
BUT at least this line will get you a LOT of new friends ROTFLMAO!
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 21, 2005, 6:45 PM
Post #175 of 209
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: In reply to: I'm sorry to see Curt go. He was the only conservative on this site who could engage in intelligent political debate using sound logic and fact-based reasoning, all the while maintaining intellectual honesty. I enjoyed our head-butting. What am I, chopped liver..? :cry:
T, I knew the Curt internet persona, and you sir are no Curt internet persona.
Sorry, but gun nuts are by definition disqualified from ever being categorized as a "conservative who can engage in intelligent political debate".
:wink:
|
|
|
|
|
|
