Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 10:35pm PT
|
Brave Cowperson, it was colorful and guacamole is a sonorous word, IMO.
And BTW, IMO is terrible on Mexican food. Use real sour cream if I'm around.
Rotten behavior deserves no flan.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 10:46pm PT
|
Is this really a problem?
Maybe we should ask ourselves that first, before we start resorting to these measures. Been in calif too long, Ed?
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 11:43pm PT
|
water on the brain could be used to fill the lakes, no?
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 05:54am PT
|
Poor Ed, he thinks everything can be fixed or controlled.
Get Vinny.
Your system should be applied in reverse to rack up votes to move on to a "heaven" in the afterlife.
|
|
pb
Sport climber
Sonora Ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 06:57am PT
|
too whacky
|
|
Gerg
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 07:46am PT
|
.their only intent is to destroy the ST Website
soft-hearted Canadians, what you see is only the tip of the iceberg
??????
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 08:40am PT
|
Will we be able to turn the wack off?
If we want to turn the wack off can we 'wack off' more than one per day?
If we wack and 'wack off' repeatedly then does our wack potency get less.
Are some people's wack and 'wack off' potencies more potent.
I could do this all day.
Will others be able to see when I wack or wack off?
Can we see others wack and 'wack off' ?
Trawling much EH?
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 09:31am PT
|
I think I get it.........
Sort of an ST "death panel".
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 12:57pm PT
|
TheMaster
what is sillier?
adults discussing an issue, or anonymous trolls who fear what might happen if their identity were known heaping disdain on the discussion...
if this is all silly, why wear a mask?
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 01:26pm PT
|
^^^ you have been offered constructive criticism by real people and then ignored their ideas.
The owners of this site have been offered constructive criticism to fix the site along with free labor to get the job done and they ignored those offers.
Talking about this isn't silly, just a waste of time since nothing will come of it, but if you have nothing better to do then go ahead and keep discussing convoluted ideas that will never happen.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 03:27pm PT
|
This is actually kind of silly
That is being charitable.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 04:30pm PT
|
Ed,
I like your idea, all things being equal. Of course, they are not. The issue is dedicated, educated users able/willing to use the system appropriately. But if it is done, I'd happily accept it.
It sounds like it would take some work to set up. I've been the owner or moderator of a number of sites, and I don't know how you would do it, simply and easily. I'm sure the geekier would know.
However, I've seen a couple of solutions used, that worked immediately. On one physician only site, where the insults and profanity was FAR worse than here, they solved 90% of it by requiring posting under your actual name. Smaller volume that ST. Also, the Washington Post and a number of other major newspapers.
on some other busy outdoor sites, creating a panel of moderators has worked well. Except for something that met pre-existing criteria, such as mayhem, any moderator could flag and set aside a post, for review by the moderator group. Two thumbs down and it's off.
Advantage, that could be set up in about an hour on this site, and how it works would be clear to all.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 05:08pm PT
|
Please leave the campfire…
a proposal for campfire members requesting an abusing member to “cease and desist”
I outlined the system on the “DEATH TO SPAMMERS THREAD -…” here it has it’s own thread for a discussion and a development.
If we’re at a campfire and someone is having a bad day and is taking it out on others sitting around the campfire, the group might decide to act to induce that someone to leave. Usually a consensus opinion forms (with abstentions, of course) and a few are empowered by the many to act to send that someone away, or at least hush up under threat of being escorted away.
Here is a scheme, it’s not totally thought out in detail, but it would seem to be a start…
Members to the forum have a quota of what, for lack of a better term, I’ll call “wacks”. Let’s say you have a 10 wack quota (the exact number is unclear but you’ll see the tradeoffs as I continue).
Other users can set your “wacks,” and if you meet a set of criteria, you can use your “wacks” to set other user’s “wacks.”
The “wacks” have a 24 hour life time, once you set one, you don’t get it back for a day.
If all of your “wacks” are set by other users, your account is suspended for review by the site manager.
If you use up all of your “wacks” setting other users' “wacks”, then your account is suspended until the “wacks” are reset (a time not more than 24 hours).
All users have a quota for “wacks” set by other users.
Only user that meet some criteria get to use their “wacks” to set other user’s “wacks.”
What could those criteria be? that could be determined by the site manager, but some examples:
1) users specifically chosen by the site owner and manager;
2) users who have posted some number of posts and been members for some period of time (without having been suspended), you could even count posts towards the privilege that have climbing content…;
3) only climbing gods can set other users’ “wacks”
4) DMT.
This would allow the community of users to respond to offensive behavior around the campfire. It preserves the anonymity desired by some posters, but limits the temptation to be intentionally uncivil in the eyes of at least 10 other users.
If that limit seems too low, then it can be made larger, if too high, smaller.
One might alter the number to have an initially high threshold, but once suspension is triggered, reduces the subsequent number so that one is forced to be more circumspect in posting.
The dynamics are hard to imagine, and I suspect that the “wacking” would be limited (at least initially).
And yes, this includes all posts and posters…
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!