Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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 saysThe 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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|