Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 20 of total 53 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
mwatsonphoto

Trad climber
Culver City, CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:24pm PT
That's a lot of wacking at the puter.... ;-)
tornado

climber
lawrence kansas
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:27pm PT
Yeah, but some of the "climbing gods" ARE wacks.
overwatch

climber
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
Nothing could be simpler except maybe string theory
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:32pm PT
overwatch, really, if you think this is complicated then there is no hope for the STForum, maybe I could have described is as if it were an episode of Survivor...

string theory? (I'm setting one of your "wacks," oh wait, I'm not DMT).
kev

climber
A pile of dirt.
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:41pm PT
Ed,

Here's a couple of questions

1)How do you invision mitigating new accounts and "sleeper accounts" wacking users?

2)Are we wacking annonamously or can we see who's wacking who?

3)Could this result in waring clans wacking each other?

My comments are partially in fun but I think each contains a few issues that might require potential mittigation.

this just in

climber
north fork
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:47pm PT
ST meltdown day 2. The campfire analogy is hilarious. I have never been to a campfire that has even come close to resembling this forum. Maybe I've been doing it wrong all this time.

Jon Beck

Trad climber
Oceanside
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:51pm PT
IF you are going to whack, at least spell it correctly
grover

climber
Northern Mexico
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
If all else fails may I suggest

[Click to View YouTube Video]
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
"wack" vs. "whacked"? too serious, don't be wacked and please review "use and mention" from your Logic 101 course... (quotes mean something more than indicating dialog).

kev asks:

1)How do you invision mitigating new accounts and "sleeper accounts" wacking users?

two ways, you use up your quota of "wacks" by setting other users' "wacks" so once you've "shot your load" you're out of action for a while... you also have to "earn" the use of your "wacks" to set another's, in a scheme that requires some establishing criteria for earning the privilege, such as time and number of posts without being suspended, you've established a presence on the Forum, you get to have a say...

...sleeper accounts won't have the necessary number of posts to get the privilege... nor newly created accounts.

2)Are we wacking annonamously or can we see who's wacking who?

yes, anonymously, but perhaps the history of "wack" setting is kept for review by the site manager... this might reveal some problem one member has with another...

3)Could this result in waring clans wacking each other?

yes, this could happen... but defines the "sensitivity" of the STForum... if enough users want to wack the creator of a "boob thread" then they can without having to plead their case...

similarly, if all those skeptical of climate change want to wack the proponents of climate change, they could if they had the votes...

all this puts the matter to the "Ruling Justice" (RJ) for adjudication, without RJ having to field emails and all that... the default is that the posse disabled accounts stay that way until they are reviewed...




Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:17pm PT
well Lurky is here...

undoubtedly an anonymous troll who enjoys posting what ever because they can, without any consequences...

...but let's just say that 10 other SuperTopo Forum members didn't appreciate Lurky's exercising the right to post up anything, and triggered the account suspension, at least Lurky would know that the posting wasn't appreciated... and wouldn't be able to continue doing it without some review by RJ...

having done that, Lurky might get a reminder to play nice, with a reduced quota of, let's say 8...

and so on...

not so contrived...
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:23pm PT
What if my pack of wolves didn't like your theoretical constructs and thus your post count was reduced, in your opinion, unjustly?

whether or not I think it is just, it would indicate the sentiment of the STForum established members. Were it to happen, it would indicate to me that perhaps this isn't the place for me to post...

SteveW

Trad climber
The state of confusion
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:29pm PT
Ed
I've contacted Cmac and asked that he wack Lurky and Duck face. . .
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
Lurky,
So you're saying that you prefer an authoritative system where the members are reduced to pleading to the site owner and manager to act?

In the age of analytics, wouldn't you prefer some method that actually indicates what the viewers of the STForum actually think? which they indicate by their votes...
...some clever analytic genius could even make something out of it.

You claim to be representative? how could you support such a claim?



The site is also run with the idea to keep the management of it to a minimum and assumes that the Forum members will "behave themselves."

You are certainly an example of someone who posts to intentionally provoke a response, and since we have no idea who you are, you can get away with it with no recrimination. I'm sure you like that feature too.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:41pm PT
Looks like Dr. F got the chop

Nice to see quick action!

Wonder how long before he re-creates himself?

10...9....8...7...
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:41pm PT
why would such a system discourage the discussion? You are assuming that it would, but you don't have any really good argument.

While those you have mentioned don't really have an issue dealing with the random anonymous trolls and hecklers, how do you know that some others don't have an issue with that? Perhaps some system to make the discussion more "civil" would moderate the more extreme expressions of displeasure and create an even more awesome environment attractive to even more of the "climbing luminaries."?

Wow, Lurky, you're getting serious, only one gif posted to this thread, that has to be a record for you...
jpin

Trad climber
CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
like the idea.
Roots

Mountain climber
Tustin, CA
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
I think it needs to be modernized:

Wickity wickity Whack! Word..

seriously, just have a volunteer group (of about 3) that are designated moderators. They enforce the criteria set by the gods. It really can be that simple.
Gerg

Trad climber
Calgary
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:50pm PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF0926o6TtE
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:58pm PT
"...users who make death threats and post XXX porn need to be dealt with..."

Ab-so-frickin'-loot-ly!

Can we start making lists of such offenders now?
kev

climber
A pile of dirt.
Jul 22, 2014 - 02:08pm PT
scrubby says
The typical flame wars cannot really be moderated,

Actually I think Ed's proposal might help with this. What proof do you have scrubby?

Ron,

I don't think you've really thought about what Ed's proposing - I don't think it would lead at all to makiing this place a ghost town.

Also not everyone has facebook, or wants facebook, or aproves of their handling of data wrt (with repsect to) privacy.
Messages 1 - 20 of total 53 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta