|
organic
Aug 13, 2003, 3:22 AM
Post #26 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
The only reason this site exists is because of people like us. If there were not people like us existing to give this site the posts, pictures, money, code, this site wouldn' exist. To have anyone delete a post especially with a word filter in place makes no sense at all. This is a site of free speech and what we see and read should be decided by us. moderators should not have the ability to deleted posts, maybe close them for conversation or move them ot another forum. But deleted them??? It is like biting the hand that feeds you And I'm sure there are logs of the deletion is whomever wants to come forward with who did it?
|
|
|
|
|
elrojobdugs
Aug 13, 2003, 3:28 AM
Post #27 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2003
Posts: 141
|
exactly right dirtineye...
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 13, 2003, 3:38 AM
Post #28 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
I'm surprised Andy gave in to the urge to reply to you. Yeah, the mod panel needs auditing. I'm finishing that right now, in fact, and un-audited moves/deletes won't happen anymore.
But this whole *** Censorship *** angle is weak.
It is explicitly noted in the 'terms of service' which users agree to when posting, that a moderator may at their sole discretion remove
In reply to: any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, illegal, or overtly destructive.
Next time, read before you rant. There are occasional passers-by who might find a thread dedicated to a kangaroo trial on rc.com a wee bit threatening. Probably pisses you off that 'tito' isn't real impressed with your schtick, as well. Good for him!
In reply to: You know, Andrew, if every moderator felt the way you do, we would have no website.
If every user was as much of a prick as you sometimes are, there would be no website on this URL, because no one would be motivated to keep it up. How well do your aid posts go over at boldering.com or on rec.climbing? Yeah, keep that in mind next time you rip on the mods.
This isn't protected speech, under American or Canadian law. This is bits and bytes on a hard drive. Trevor (or yours truly, since Trevor isn't likely to read your PM any time soon, being on vacation for a time) could wipe them and take the server down and there's nothing you could do about it. The reason no one does this is that, most of the time, it's satisfying to have a community resource and see people enjoying it. There is some give-and-take to the relationship -- all of the stakeholders recognize the site would suck without longtime members, and there is a lot of thought put into accomodating as diverse a community as practicable. But in the end the burdens of the site are not borne by the majority of users, rather, by the owners and the volunteer moderators.
Tearing into Andy was particularly pathetic, since he resigned a while ago as a moderator. If you read more than a word or two into his post you'd know this. Andrew did a good job; sometimes his judgement differs from yours. At least he's not just some Internet Superhero acting out a role.
|
|
|
|
|
climber49er
Aug 13, 2003, 3:41 AM
Post #29 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1404
|
Good Grief Petey!
You've been around long enough to know that RC.com reserves the right to delete whatever the heck they want to! (private enterprise, sponsors, blah blah blah)
I don't understand the issue at hand (the yosemite gear thing) and quite frankly it doesn't matter if I do or don't. The owners of RC.com do not have to let you or anyone else post anything here if they choose not to.
I had an auction disapear on Ebay not long ago. Why? Because they didn't want it there. No explaination needed. It's their system, they make the rules, case closed. Same applies here.
Goodnight... Zzzzzzz
|
|
|
|
|
moabbeth
Aug 13, 2003, 3:41 AM
Post #30 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 1786
|
I commented on the thread that got deleted, and saw all the other posts ahead of mine. I totally fail to see WHY the thread was deleted. I've seen things on this site 100% more offensive, accusatory and vile that not only stay up but are allowed to fester to 10 pages worth of hostile flaming. Totally makes no sense to me. :roll:
Pete's right, this is a serious issue that involves Yosemite climbers. And for all of us who have been wrongfully messed with by the Tool (myself included), we know what Gawd did was unspeakably wrong. He deserves a lifetime of bad climbing juju. And what he did deserves to be discussed on this forum. Please bring that thread back so everyone can see what we were talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 13, 2003, 3:50 AM
Post #31 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: I commented on the thread that got deleted, and saw all the other posts ahead of mine. I totally fail to see WHY the thread was deleted. I've seen things on this site 100% more offensive, accusatory and vile that not only stay up but are allowed to fester to 10 pages worth of hostile flaming. Totally makes no sense to me. :roll: Pete's right, this is a serious issue that involves Yosemite climbers. And for all of us who have been wrongfully messed with by the Tool (myself included), we know what Gawd did was unspeakably wrong. He deserves a lifetime of bad climbing juju. And what he did deserves to be discussed on this forum. Please bring that thread back so everyone can see what we were talking about.
See, here's the problem. When I see your response, I want to dig into the database and see if I can paw the wreckage out of it, since (pre-auditing) I have no idea of who'd have done it. (Personally I like Eric, but he's his own man, it's not my business what he does or the consequences he faces)
When I saw Pete's response I wanted to bite his head off.
The thing is, Pete strikes this Rebel Without a Pause affectation, and your response actually explains why the thread's deletion was a mistake. (Concisely.) Pete, you should take a look at Beth's style, maybe you could pick something up.
I dunno, the content seems similar, the presentation is radically different. For my part I'm simply going to finish adding post-on-move and PM-on-delete to the forums so this doesn't happen again. I hope the mod will discuss the topic offline with the original poster and see what can be done.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 13, 2003, 3:50 AM
Post #32 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
So I got this recipe the other day.
3 eggs
brownie mix
wallnuts(no,not aid climbers)
two tbls. of water
one third cup of oil
prescribed medication for Glue-coma(half ounce)
Bake for 35-40 min.
|
|
|
|
|
dave1970
Aug 13, 2003, 3:50 AM
Post #33 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94
|
[quote="climber49er"]Good Grief Petey!
You've been around long enough to know that RC.com reserves the right to delete whatever the heck they want to! (private enterprise, sponsors, blah blah blah)
Anyone who solicitis "contributions" as if to imply some sort sort of non profit (501 (c)) 3) status has absolutely no right to delete whatever they want to.
|
|
|
|
|
gravitysucks
Aug 13, 2003, 3:53 AM
Post #35 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 147
|
let me first say, that I am not an aid climber. I was simply browsing through the topics of the day a few hours back. but I do climb and I do write and they are both things I am passionate about. and I believe freedom of expression and individuality are extremely important in both endeavors. that being said, I have no quarrel with any of the individuals who started and have contributed to this thread or the previous thread ("Should Gawd Be Nailed To A Pole At Camp 5?") that spawned this one.
I'll make this as simple as possible. I was reading [justsendingits] thread before I left work for lunch. left the window up. got back from lunch. refreshed rockclimbing.com in another browser window to find this thread claiming that [justsendingits] thread was missing. true, it may have been missing from the database, but it was still on my screen.
1. I think [justsendingits] thread was probably deleted for a reason. because I do not know what that reason is, I will not repost it here verbatim out of respect for that decision.
I agree with [dirtineye]...this ain't really my fight.
2. BUT because as a writer, I do absloutely believe and find my livelihood in freedom of speech and press, if you wish to read the previous thread, I do have a copy if it is important to you. I hope I am not out of line by making this offer. however, what you choose to do with it is up to you. I chose to keep it. because if they were my words and feelings, I would hope that somebody would pay me the same respect.
:roll: :? :shock: :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Aug 13, 2003, 3:54 AM
Post #37 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
That's interesting, Tim.
If RC.com were to delete any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy,illegal, or overtly destructive, it would end up deleting the majority of posts on the website.
And if RC.com were to delete any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy,illegal, or overtly destructive, it would end up deleting RC.com's All-Time #1 Post with over 34,000 hits, which just so happens to be mostly a flame against me, written about me while I was climbing El Cap!
So riddle me this - why is it that the flames against me or others are not deleted, yet the flame against gawd is?
Is their preferential flaming at work here?
Perhaps there are politics involved?
Are certain users treated better than others? Is this the Animal Farm of the www?
Maybe if you are one of the annointed few, your posts won't get deleted or moved.
Now, just because RC.com has the right to do the above does not make it right.
Paul said we should live under grace, not the law.
Shaw said, "the law is an ass."
I don't see much grace around here, and the law sure as hell ain't the only ass round this place.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 13, 2003, 3:56 AM
Post #38 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: If RC.com were to delete any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy,illegal, or overtly destructive, it would end up deleting the majority of posts on the website.
As usual, you failed to actually read the text. Any of the above are 'at the discretion of the moderators'. So when someone tears into you for pedophilia, you'll find that it cuts both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 13, 2003, 3:58 AM
Post #39 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: 2. BUT because as a writer, I do absloutely believe and find my livelihood in freedom of speech and press, if you wish to read the previous thread, I do have a copy if it is important to you. I hope I am not out of line by making this offer. however, what you choose to do with it is up to you. I chose to keep it. because if they were my words and feelings, I would hope that somebody would pay me the same respect. :roll: :? :shock: :wink:
This is really cool. The thread's not in the database, but this is probably the most constructive response so far.
Pete has taken up this fight because he's nothing better to do -- of that I am certain. Your offer was extremely cool and bridges the time gap between now and whenever the person who whacked the thread, offers up their explanation.
For whatever it's worth, I didn't whack the post; I can look through the logs to find out who did, but it's really up to them to offer their prerogative. I just think it's cool that you are helping resolve the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
dave1970
Aug 13, 2003, 4:01 AM
Post #40 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94
|
Really? So a bar with a tip jar has no right to hire a bouncer?
Sit down, chump.
Show me a non profit bar and we will have an intelligent conversation
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Aug 13, 2003, 4:02 AM
Post #41 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
BWAHAHAHA I can't believe he is so proud of this In reply to: RC.com's All-Time #1 Post with over 34,000 hits, which just so happens to be mostly a flame against me
NICE!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Aug 13, 2003, 4:03 AM
Post #42 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
Just because you have the right to censor doesn't make it right. Sure, sometimes there are obvious reasons to delete, but this post sure as hell wasn't one of them.
Good on you to change the code so it can't happen accidentally again, if indeed it was an accident, which I rather doubt. [If it were, the person who did it would have said so, and we would have said, Ok, dummy, don't do it again, eh?]
Gravity - I would love to see the whole thread! Please email it to me at peterzabrok@cogeco.ca
I would suggest you PM or email each person's response back to them, or email them the whole darn thing too.
FYI, it's been replaced on the Aid Climbing forum.
You can click here if you want to know why everyone is angry at gawd.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 13, 2003, 4:08 AM
Post #43 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: Really? So a bar with a tip jar has no right to hire a bouncer? Sit down, chump.
Show me a non profit bar and we will have an intelligent conversation
Where is rc.com listed as nonprofit? Or a charity?
Contributions can be solicited by private LLC's as goodwill, last time I checked. The site provides a service and some users make a 'suggested donation'. This is not mutually exclusive with restraint or discretion, especially when conflicting interests are at play.
If Eric gets his ass beat into a bloody pulp as a result of a character assassination on here, it would be a rather poor precedent. It's called mob rule and it sucks. This website runs on privately owned hardware and its bills are paid by individuals. I'm working on changing the business model from a 'tip jar' to an explicitly service-oriented business, in concert with the owner (Trevor) and the other leads (Adam and Russ), but every second I spend on one of these threads is time I don't have to work on bug fixes or testing out the services. So hopefully between this answer and the edit I made to my reply to you, you'll have all you need to 'discuss', because I am going to cut my losses and excuse myself from this discussion for a while, which I ought to have done half an hour ago.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 13, 2003, 4:46 AM
Post #44 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Someone deleeted my lame ass thread,which is even more lame.
|
|
|
|
|
dave1970
Aug 13, 2003, 4:57 AM
Post #45 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 94
|
In reply to: In reply to: Really? So a bar with a tip jar has no right to hire a bouncer? Sit down, chump. Show me a non profit bar and we will have an intelligent conversation
Where is rc.com listed as nonprofit? Or a charity?
Contributions can be solicited by private LLC's as goodwill, last time I checked. The site provides a service and some users make a 'suggested donation'. This is not mutually exclusive with restraint or discretion, especially when conflicting interests are at play.
Tim,
since you are so patient with my being such a chump, I will excuse your obvious ignorance concerning the proper use of the term "goodwill"as defined under the internal revenue code. An LLC is allowed to solicit revenues for any legal purpose it desires, in most cases, although laws vary from state to state.
I am simply stating that the front page heading "top donators" would be most kindly described as misleading.
If this website and or domain name is, in fact , owned by an LLC a more accurate heading would perhaps be "top sources of for profit revenue".
I have no problem with such a concept. You should, however, provide the official entity name as well as the corresponding federal tax identification number so that 1099's can be issued to the actual recipient of these "suggested contributions" as you describe.
I strongly agree with you in that no site should serve as a conduit for
encouraging violence against any individual or group, I feel that your strong statement on this point should be commended.
So who are the members of the LLC that I believe you are saying owns the domain name rockclimbing.com? I thought it was owned by Trevor personally.
Perhaps you can be patient enough to help me out here.
After all I am just a chump.
|
|
|
|
|
climber49er
Aug 13, 2003, 5:13 AM
Post #46 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1404
|
In reply to: Tim, since you are so patient with my being such a chump, I will excuse your obvious ignorance concerning the proper use of the term "goodwill"as defined under the internal revenue code. An LLC is allowed to solicit revenues for any legal purpose it desires, in most cases, although laws vary from state to state. I am simply stating that the front page heading "top donators" would be most kindly described as misleading. If this website and or domain name is, in fact , owned by an LLC a more accurate heading would perhaps be "top sources of for profit revenue". I have no problem with such a concept. You should, however, provide the official entity name as well as the corresponding federal tax identification number so that 1099's can be issued to the actual recipient of these "suggested contributions" as you describe. I strongly agree with you in that no site should serve as a conduit for encouraging violence against any individual or group, I feel that your strong statement on this point should be commended. So who are the members of the LLC that I believe you are saying owns the domain name rockclimbing.com? I thought it was owned by Trevor personally. Perhaps you can be patient enough to help me out here. After all I am just a chump.
It is not difficult at all to figure out that RC.com is not a nonprofit organization. I knew it the first time I visited this site. I also saw the list of contributors.
It doesn't take long for a thinking person to understand that this is a privately owned site that is gracious enough to not charge a subscription or entry fee of any kind. That is nice.
I benefit from someone else's hard work and resources, I like that, so I donate if I choose to. Thats the way it works. Easy enough. I didn't feel duped for even a moment.
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Aug 13, 2003, 6:14 AM
Post #47 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: I am simply stating that the front page heading "top donators" would be most kindly described as misleading. If this website and or domain name is, in fact , owned by an LLC a more accurate heading would perhaps be "top sources of for profit revenue".
As someone who has ran community sites since before rc.com wore diapers, I am pretty sure that this site has _never_ had a profit.
And Pete, stop gabbing - I had to turn down the thermostat on my A/C, you were spewing so much hot air...
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 13, 2003, 6:42 AM
Post #48 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: pete, I was looking at that thread when it got erased, but rest assured I'm one for doing something about this whole situation! D Hello climbinganne! This is an automatically generated message. daisuke changed the amount of time required between your postings in the forums, to 3600 seconds (60 minutes ) with the following comment: purposely got past the language filter AGAIN THIS IS WHAT HE WAS DOING... Man, that's messed up. And so is the whole other post getting deleted. Since when can we not speak freely? Did anyone truly feel offended by any of this? Maybe they should learn to except it, and deal with it. In the words of Voltaire (I think): "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to my death, your right to say it" <=glen=>
You realize you're being an imbecile, right? Either that or you're trolling.
If I toss my dog's shit into the middle of your shindig, do you 'just deal'?
Thought not.
What about if I choose to express my satisfaction with your mother`s sexual favors by spraypainting a big thank-you on your car? Is that, too, something with which you should 'just deal'? I mean, I'd surely be expressing myself freely. And without my efforts, that piece of 'art' would not exist! So you'd just 'deal' with your displeasure, right?
Unlikely.
Every time you post, right at the bottom of your window, you're agreeing to this site's fine little Terms of Service. In consideration of the Service (5 million visits a month and counting), you agree to the Terms (no cussin', no fightin', no smokin' at the dinner table), and everybody is usually happy. You really ought to read the agreement that you're agreeing to.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 13, 2003, 6:47 AM
Post #49 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: Tim, since you are so patient with my being such a chump, I will excuse your obvious ignorance concerning the proper use of the term "goodwill"as defined under the internal revenue code. An LLC is allowed to solicit revenues for any legal purpose it desires, in most cases, although laws vary from state to state. I am simply stating that the front page heading "top donators" would be most kindly described as misleading. If this website and or domain name is, in fact , owned by an LLC a more accurate heading would perhaps be "top sources of for profit revenue". I have no problem with such a concept. You should, however, provide the official entity name as well as the corresponding federal tax identification number so that 1099's can be issued to the actual recipient of these "suggested contributions" as you describe. I strongly agree with you in that no site should serve as a conduit for encouraging violence against any individual or group, I feel that your strong statement on this point should be commended. So who are the members of the LLC that I believe you are saying owns the domain name rockclimbing.com? I thought it was owned by Trevor personally. Perhaps you can be patient enough to help me out here. After all I am just a chump.
FWIW, this is a point I have brought up time and again with Trevor. I don't believe that anything short of a co-op with ownership shares is appropriate for that sort of donation; however I am not acting alone nor do I control the direction of the site by myself, so until such time as I can convince Trevor to go along with the gag, it may stay that way. A better legal wording of what is being solicited, on the other hand, could go up in 30 seconds flat. As for the LLC number, I'll have to get that from Trev, who incorporated the whole thing.
Calling you a 'chump' was out of line. (which is why I edited it out) But the point remains that the assets of the site are not held by a 501(c)3 nor in trust by the state; as far as I am aware, you`d have trouble even bending the ear of a small-claims judge for the amounts we`re talking about here.
Rc.com makes enough to pay for operating expenses and that`s about it.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 13, 2003, 7:36 AM
Post #50 of 266
(16724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Ok so someone deleted my post,intentional or by accident.
whatever.....
I love this site,and if a mod. or an addm. make a mistake or a bad call once in awhile,big deal.As long as it does not happen on a regular basis.
Sometimes I get a little bi-polar and look at a post I submitted and wonder what was I thinking,that is what the edit box is for.(please note the edit box is not for storing climbing gear and will be padlocked if abused)
The ppl. at this site who do a lot of hard work should be thanked more often.
There seems to be a lot more to disagreements between some ppl. here than is on the surface.Seems like they just use these debates to flame one another than wanting to exchange opinions and have a productive debate(me included sometimes).
I guess some of the negative relationships here at RC. go back along way.
But the bottom line is a lot of you guys add more to this site than take away.
Like PTPP,so he is overly dependent on external admiration,so what.
I know this might seem like a melodramatic statement to non aid climbers.
But Pete has quite possibly saved lives with his advice,or at the least made life better for aid climbers.His posts helped me when I first started climbing and still do.
A lot of ppl. that rail on him do very little to help out new climbers.I have talked with valley locals who agree with me.They praise him for his help and his climbing.And I am talking about VERY experienced valley climbers.
Same goes for the Mods. and addm.Sure with all the things they post and all the work they do,I could try hard to find a mistake they made or a bad call and make a big deal out of it.But at the end of the day,what they do here is very positive.Me thanks you all.
Some you guys need to keep your personal displeasure with on another out of these debates.
Kind of reminds me of a few bad arguments between boyfriend/girlfriend teams that I have seen on the rock.
It starts out over how to do a move,but then they bring other disagreements into the argument that have nothing to do with climbing but they vent it out over how to do the move.
Can we be productive and move on now??
With that said,time for me to go make some brownies....
Drive fast take chances...
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
