|
curt
Aug 10, 2010, 5:40 AM
Post #1 of 131
(13728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
The entire "Lab" forum is currently unaccessible. Is that normal? 
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 10, 2010, 6:26 AM
Post #2 of 131
(13713 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Well, don't say you didn't see it coming.
Newly-appearing usernames that appear set up to impersonate and/or antagonise an existing username are a ban-on-sight thing. We've banned at least one jt512 impersonator in the past (at jt's request, I might add). In this case it was a username set up with an uppercase i in place of a lowercase L - depending upon your display font, this can look identical to the original. So, it was nuked.
The user in question still has access to PM, however - so if it turns out we have made a mistake, they can contact us and the worst indignity they suffer is a few hours to a few days break from posting.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 10, 2010, 4:00 PM
Post #3 of 131
(13689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blondgecko wrote: Newly-appearing usernames that appear set up to impersonate and/or antagonise an existing username are a ban-on-sight thing. We've banned at least one jt512 impersonator in the past (at jt's request, I might add). In this case it was a username set up with an uppercase i in place of a lowercase L - depending upon your display font, this can look identical to the original. So, it was nuked.
ptIong is not an impersonation. ptIong and ptlong are almost certainly the same person. ptlong has not visited the site since June 30. The ptIong account was created Aug 6. The tone, vocabulary, unparalleled knowledge of the physics of impact forces, and even the graphing software (which isn't Excel) used by both accounts is identical. Thus the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggests that the user quit using the account "ptlong" in June, and, for some reason, rejoined the site as ptIong a few days ago. Who knows why; who cares.
In reply to: The user in question still has access to PM, however - so if it turns out we have made a mistake, they can contact us...
You boneheads have made a mistake. You assumed, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the ptIong account was a spoof of the ptlong account. Since it is your mistake, it is your responsibility, not ptIong's, to take the initiative to make things right.
In reply to: ... and the worst indignity they suffer is a few hours to a few days break from posting.
Whoever ptIong is in real life, he is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable users of the site. He has been climbing since the '70s and has more knowledge of the physics of impact forces than anyone else on this site. I know the owners couldn't give a shit, but if the few of you moderators who actually are climbers actually care about the quality of the content of the forums, then, for god's sake, remove the restrictions from the ptIong account before ptIong even finds out that some moderator action was taken against him. Whoever he really is (I suspect that is someone of considerable stature in physics), he is not going to be used to being treated in such a patronizing manner, and he may decide that contributing to this site after being so treated is beneath his dignity. Well, the fact is, this site needs him a lot more than he needs this site. We should be courting the participation of users like this, not treating them like children who need to be spanked because, for some reason, they've bent a rule.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong2
Aug 10, 2010, 4:25 PM
Post #4 of 131
(13678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2010
Posts: 102
|
So much drama.
I locked myself out of my previous account and can't remember what temporary email I used to create it way back when. So I created a new account.
Now I have another one, pltong2. Will you kill it? Or should I create yet another account with a completely unrelated alias?
I just want to talk about ropes...
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 10, 2010, 8:06 PM
Post #5 of 131
(13659 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Well, there we have it.
If you ask ddt, I'm guessing the password on your original account can be reset easily enough. No reason to have to start fresh.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 10, 2010, 8:16 PM
Post #6 of 131
(13656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blondgecko wrote: Well, there we have it. If you ask ddt, I'm guessing the password on your original account can be reset easily enough. No reason to have to start fresh.
And no reason not to. You guys are enforcing rules for just for the sake of enforcing rules. Clearly, the duplicate accounts were not opened for any nefarious purpose.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 10, 2010, 8:25 PM
Post #7 of 131
(13650 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Well, I kinda agree with what you said earlier - someone is treating the man like a child who needs to be protected from all possible indignities. I just don't think the ones doing so are the mods.
Let's let ptlong decide whether or not he's upset, hmm?
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong2
Aug 10, 2010, 11:18 PM
Post #8 of 131
(13631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2010
Posts: 102
|
I'm not upset, but I fully agree with Jay that you guys went way overboard.
Some user makes four dull, non-confrontational posts over a period of a few days and the mods respond by not only locking the user but also the entire forum? That's more funny than upsetting.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 10, 2010, 11:35 PM
Post #9 of 131
(13625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Oh, the forum wasn't locked. Curt just got a (temporary) banz from the Lab.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 10, 2010, 11:38 PM
Post #10 of 131
(13624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blondgecko wrote: Oh, the forum wasn't locked. Curt just got a (temporary) banz from the Lab.
Why? I read his post, and although I don't recall the exact wording, I don't remember thinking it was incendiary.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 10, 2010, 11:50 PM
Post #11 of 131
(13615 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
jt512 wrote: blondgecko wrote: Oh, the forum wasn't locked. Curt just got a (temporary) banz from the Lab. Why? I read his post, and although I don't recall the exact wording, I don't remember thinking it was incendiary. Jay
Ah, the double-edged sword of the "hide post" button. You get to clean up threads to keep them on topic, but then most people don't get to see what caused the problem in the first place.
In any case, the mystery of the morphing username is solved, the only party who could claim to be injured isn't particularly bothered, and as soon as ddt comes along he should be able to get his original username back. Time to let this one drop, I think?
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong2
Aug 11, 2010, 12:02 AM
Post #12 of 131
(13610 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2010
Posts: 102
|
I see. I missed out on the drama. So there was more to this than just an overreaction to my choice of username? Or was that what Curt was posting about?
I'm fine with being ptlong2.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 12:15 AM
Post #13 of 131
(13601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
An overreaction to an overreaction, you might say.
If you're happy with the new username, then it's all good.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 12:19 AM
Post #14 of 131
(13601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ptlong2 wrote: I see. I missed out on the drama. So there was more to this than just an overreaction to my choice of username? Or was that what Curt was posting about?
I looked back in the backup of my browser cache, and Curt had the audacity to react to moderator adatesman's announcement that he closed your "ptIong" account with the question "Are you [adatesman] fucking nuts?" Apparently, this is a bannable question to ask a moderator. It's the wrong question anyway. The question question would have been "Are you fucking stupid?" since it was obvious, for the reasons I stated up-thread, that ptIong and ptlong were the same user.
In reply to: I'm fine with being ptlong2.
Well the mods won't be. You've violated the multiple accounts rule twice now, as well as the rule against creating a new account to circumvent an account that has been closed for violating the terms of service. You're in big fucking trouble there, dude.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 11, 2010, 12:23 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 12:26 AM
Post #15 of 131
(13593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: blondgecko wrote: Oh, the forum wasn't locked. Curt just got a (temporary) banz from the Lab. Why? I read his post, and although I don't recall the exact wording, I don't remember thinking it was incendiary. Jay Ah, the double-edged sword of the "hide post" button. You get to clean up threads to keep them on topic, but then most people don't get to see what caused the problem in the first place. In any case, the mystery of the morphing username is solved, the only party who could claim to be injured isn't particularly bothered, and as soon as ddt comes along he should be able to get his original username back. Time to let this one drop, I think?
It'll be time to drop it when you and Adatesman admit that you this entire episode was of your own making, and that you handled the whole thing about as badly as can be imagined.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong2
Aug 11, 2010, 12:40 AM
Post #16 of 131
(13583 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2010
Posts: 102
|
jt512 wrote: It'll be time to drop it when you and Adatesman admit that you this entire episode was of your own making, and that you handled the whole thing about as badly as can be imagined. Jay
Jay, give 'em a break. They're in training to be homeowners association presidents someday. Overreacting to minor indiscretions is the name of the game.
(This post was edited by ptlong2 on Aug 11, 2010, 1:06 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 1:43 AM
Post #17 of 131
(13570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
ptlong2 wrote: jt512 wrote: It'll be time to drop it when you and Adatesman admit that you this entire episode was of your own making, and that you handled the whole thing about as badly as can be imagined. Jay Jay, give 'em a break. They're in training to be homeowners association presidents someday. Overreacting to minor indiscretions is the name of the game.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the case and this is probably the only time in Aric's life (until he gets on that Homeowner's Board, anyway) that he will be able to get this drunk with his ability to wield absolute power.
Truth be told, I probably got banned from that forum for my heated reply to the extremely smarmy and condescending PM I got from Aric. Naturally, being a moderator, there is no consequence to him for treating a mere user like shit--but I get banned from "his" forum.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 1:47 AM
Post #18 of 131
(13567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Perhaps a bit of the back story for you ptlong2 is needed.
We had a problem with users creating duplicate accounts that pretty much spoofed long term users accounts. It all came to a head when jt512 had his username spoofed. From memory JT512 was used. It was a troll account set up to confuse users. jt512 hollered long and loud to have spoofed usernames banned from the forums. He didn't like it when it was not to his convenience.
Since those happy days we have regularly held users to a one username only policy. Some users have submitted requests to allow them to convert their online personnae to another username. In every case we have complied with those requests.
So to have a reasonably low postcount user setting up multiple accounts will always cause us to react with nuking the duplicate accounts. We will always allow one username at one time only.
Glad to see that you arne't particularly bothered by all this kerfuffle. We the mods are simply trying to maintain an orderly userbase. We don't particularly like to be abused by the likes of jt and others when simple modding tasks are performed. If users are reasonable with us then we of course are entirely reasonable with the users.
You've been entirely reasonable here ptlong and whatever we can do to make it easy for you to continue posting here then we are happy to oblige.
All we ask of the users is to be at the minimum civil. If that is too much then feel free to open the airplane door and slide down the emergency exit. We won't even call the cops.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 2:30 AM
Post #19 of 131
(13552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
philbox wrote: Perhaps a bit of the back story for you ptlong2 is needed. We had a problem with users creating duplicate accounts that pretty much spoofed long term users accounts. It all came to a head when jt512 had his username spoofed. From memory JT512 was used. It was a troll account set up to confuse users. jt512 hollered long and loud to have spoofed usernames banned from the forums. He didn't like it when it was not to his convenience.
It had nothing to do with my "convenience," Phil. It had to do with someone posting crap under my name, or a name that appeared to be mine—stuff that if allowed to remain on the site would be archived by search engines forever, and possibly be attributed to me in the future, with who knows what consequences. However, that is not what happened here. "PtIong" was almost certainly not a spoof account, and you and your nannies should have realized that. If it was so obvious to me and Curt, then how could you and your staff, especially Aric, who ought to be aware of what is going on in a forum that he considers to be "his," have been so duped?
In reply to: Since those happy days we have regularly held users to a one username only policy.
That doesn't even follow logically from the previous paragraph. The site has always had a one-username policy, and the reasons pre-date and have nothing to do with spoofing another user.
In reply to: So to have a reasonably low postcount user setting up multiple accounts will always cause us to react with nuking the duplicate accounts.
What the "reasonably low postcount" qualification has to do with anything is beyond me. But, regardless, there are very few things that should "always cause [you] to react" without thinking, which is exactly what you did in this case. How about this: if a highly respected user, who has never bent a site rule, suddenly pops up with another username that appears to be intentionally similar to his previous username, after having not logged in with the previous username for six weeks, then maybe you should not assume the worst, but rather do something thoughtful and reasonable, like PMing the user to find out what is going on. That is certainly what I would have counseled when I was your senior moderator, and I'm the guy who started the whole no user spoofing thing in the first place.
In reply to: We will always allow one username at one time only.
And, considering he hadn't used the old user account for a month and a half, a reasonable tentative conclusion to have reached would be that, for some reason he either couldn't access it, or no longer wanted to, so that basically he only had one active account at any one time.
In reply to: If users are reasonable with us then we of course are entirely reasonable with the users.
Wow, what an attitude. You people are in a service position. If you can't maintain the attitude that as long as you are reasonable with the users, then they'll be reasonable to you, it's time to resign.
Phil, as usual, you are missing the point, which is: it was obvious that ptIong was ptlong posting under another user account, for some reason, such as a lost password, using a username he intentionally picked so that users would know that the two usernames belonged to him. This is exactly the opposite of what you clowns, reacting without thinking, concluded.
In reply to: You've been entirely reasonable here ptlong and whatever we can do to make it easy for you to continue posting here then we are happy to oblige.
He's been more than reasonable. He's been magnanimous in the face of flagrant stupidity on the part of the so-called staff, none of whom has yet to apologize, and in the face of you actually attempting to build a defense for the staff's actions.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 3:09 AM
Post #20 of 131
(13539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
And we very much apreciate ptlong and his magnanimity.
No stupidity at all on the part of the mods. Do you not get it Jay that if the users are civil then this place welcomes the users. Be a tard and we'll show you the door. Pretty simple. It should be well noted that we are talking about two different issues here. ptlong's issue I believe has been resolved. The attitude of users such as yourself Jay who keep flogging the dead horse (oh why did we get rid of that emoticon) leads us towards the only conclusion we can reach.
Feel free to leave, don't let the tarmac break your fall.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 3:18 AM
Post #21 of 131
(13534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
You'll also note that the Lab forum has advertised in very clear words that that forum is a highly moderated forum. Aric was doing his JOB. I will always support the mods when they are doing their JOBS.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 3:25 AM
Post #22 of 131
(13534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
philbox wrote: And we very much apreciate ptlong and his magnanimity. No stupidity at all on the part of the mods.
No matter how many times you repeat that it will still be patently false. The two accounts were obviously the same person. You nuked the new account because you believed that it was a spoof account. You now pretend that you did it because you knew it was the same person, and it violated the one-account rule. If the first reason is true, then you were stupid. If the second was true, then you used poor judgment. Either way, nuking the account was an act of incompetence. If I was still a moderator, that account would never have been nuked. A PM would have been sent to the account to find out what was going on. Curt would not have been banned from the Lab. This thread would not exist. You would not be vacuously inviting me to leave this site.
In reply to: Be a tard and we'll show you the door.
The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!
In reply to: The attitude of users such as yourself Jay who keep flogging the dead horse (oh why did we get rid of that emoticon) leads us towards the only conclusion we can reach.
Whatever the fuck that means.
In reply to: Feel free to leave, don't let the tarmac break your fall.
No, Phil, you feel free to leave. And take your army of incompetent clowns with you.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 11, 2010, 4:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 3:33 AM
Post #23 of 131
(13530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Keep digging that hole Jay.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 3:40 AM
Post #24 of 131
(13526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
philbox wrote: Keep digging that hole Jay.
Well, threatening users is always a nice way to moderate a conversation, isn't it? Especially when they're right.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 3:59 AM
Post #25 of 131
(13520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
philbox wrote: Keep digging that hole Jay.
Wow, has your attitude deteriorated! And you've brought the rest of the staff down with you.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lab?
1
