Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 11:50am PT
|
Put a low quota on posts per day. In the range of one to 4 posts per day. With a quota of one post per day, you could only post one insult or offhand comment per day. The very high ratio of insults to trip reports might be much reduced.
With no quota, those who put the least amount of energy and thought into their posts have a huge bumping advantage over those who do put time and thought into their posts.
|
|
snarky
climber
Hoisington
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 12:01pm PT
|
^^^^ Nails it! (With the exception that all registered Republicans have access to edit any whiney liberal's posts.)
|
|
Braunini
Big Wall climber
cupertino
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 12:22pm PT
|
Fuk the idea of minimalizing post counts...
The place is fine as it is and pretty much always has been...
lol
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 30, 2014 - 12:25pm PT
|
DMT,
Please don't remove the users right and ability to delete her own material. Erasing text is not the same. Why should a person be able to delete their thread from the index and:
 make other people's posts hard to find
lock the thread
I feel that if a person chooses to post, they should understand that the
thread will be there permanently.
And that the text in their posts will be there permanently after the 10 day edit window.
It encourages a "think before you post" attitude, which I believe is a good thing.
Some forums have no edit button at all. Everything that goes in is
permanent.
Emphatically disagree with the 'we own your post' mentality. Supposed ownership has nothing to do with my reasons above.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 30, 2014 - 12:30pm PT
|
Vitaliy,
Don't read personal PMs!!! I think you were mostly joking, but maybe serious about this one.
But I think RJ had a good explanation of at least one reason that
admin access to the emails originating from the web form here can
be a good thing.
It is when a person is using those emails to threaten another user.
I agree, though, we usually feel emails are a "private communication"
and should not be read by people other than the recipient.
And not quoted in public by the recipient without permission.
But once something is put into writing, we know there is some chance
it may be used in a way we didn't intend.
So we try to be cautious about putting very sensitive things into
writing, correct?
|
|
Braunini
Big Wall climber
cupertino
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 12:31pm PT
|
Because that's how the forum software is coded, silly.
if only we lived in a world where we could fix such things
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 30, 2014 - 12:34pm PT
|
mike m,
Allow you to turn photos after they have uploaded. Excellent idea. I have seen this problem stop people from posting photos.
In the EXIF data in a photo .JPG file, there is a flag to rotate the photo for display.
Just read this flag when uploading a photo, and then the user does not even have to check and do a second step to rotate it.
Also:
When using the [Photo] button to insert a photo you have previously uploaded (or are uploading currently, which has not worked for me), move the cursor past the ]. Right now, the cursor is at:
[photo|id=number]. This means that when a person tries to insert a second photo without moving the cursor by hand, it corrupts the previous photo reference. This happens on a regular basis. Poor implementation.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 30, 2014 - 12:40pm PT
|
a person should be able to delete her own posts. I don't give a crap about 'thread integrity.' A person owns her own posts. In my view, a person "owns" (controls) the text of their post, for a 10 day edit window.
Once they offer that text to the public, it's public.
They should not be able to hide the fact that they made a post at a given date/time, even if they choose to delete its text.
They do not own the thread they start.
They should not be able to control / moderate the posts of others.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 12:45pm PT
|
Nothing is wrong, everything is normal, this is just the way it is, some things will never change. Talk amongst yourselves.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 12:46pm PT
|
Thanks, Clint, but most of all, Thank you, Super Topo, Cmac, RJ and all who allow us such wonderful entertainment on this site.
I understand and support restrictions on using this site to compete with ST, or disabling those whose abusive conduct poses either a threat to the owners (e.g. vilent threats, porn (this can get a website in trouble if the site is unrestricted, but the content should be, for instance, age-restricted [but don't get me going on how we came up with the euphemism "adult entertainment"], and this can alos create a hostile environment for, particularly on this site, women), or an affront to "normal" climbers who frequent this site, or, for example, SPAM.
I do, however, feel that the "individual erasure" sanction has made us poorer by its overapplication. Our loss of Eric, Craig, Coz, Jeff and even Lois and Joe (Hedge) has caused us to lose many worthwhile posts that casued me, at least, to think in intellectually stimulating ways. Besides, these were all people we know, not hiddlen, anonymous, cowardly posters.
Even with that gripe, though, I find the patience of the ST propieotors with our anarchic presence amazing. Sure, we all have suggestions for changes we'd like to see, and I'm sure we all take issue with something here, but when I see posts asking for "alternatives" to ST, I wonder if we've bathed ourselves in fantasy.
John
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 12:55pm PT
|
Strongly agree with the OP. Great suggestions.
Also, people signing up for the forum should agree to terms and conditions that their comments are property of the forum, with credits due but no compensation for use in future products for sale. Same with photos but only in context that they are credited and that it was posted in this forum.
This may not hold up in court, but it would be fair. You have costs providing this forum and you deserve the right to exploit it.
I suppose in 1999 when you learned the formula; content, commerce, community, that the community would become such a force of nature and a force of history. It has been a valuable lesson.
|
|
nah000
climber
canuckistan
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 02:07pm PT
|
DMT wrote: "a person should be able to delete her own posts. I don't give a crap about 'thread integrity.' A person owns her own posts."
emphatically disagree with this. if i send a person a letter, can i demand that they send it back? if we are in conversation do i have to pretend to have not heard something if a person decides they don't like what they said? if i publish in a magazine, can i go around and demand that everybody cut out the portions i wrote if i decide i'm no longer happy with what i wrote? what if i quote someone else's post just like i did above: do i have to remove that if DMT decides he wants it deleted?
being able to edit and delete for the two or so week window that now exists is a great compromise. after that, as with any public conversation, a post can [and imo should] become a part of a record that the original poster no longer has the ability to retract. [all that said, i think another positive compromise might be to allow a person to, in perpetuity, take their name off a post, while leaving the content itself intact...]
i'm not saying that site ownership "owns" our posts and should be able to take another persons words and sell or use them directly in a different application. ie. i'm fine with the idea of the original poster continuing to "own" their words and the rights to further distribution. i just don't think a person has a right to contribute to a conversation and then three years later decide that they want them back and can therefore retract our ability to read what was previously freely contributed to a specific arena.
it seems to me, if you don't want a record of your words in a public arena, you shouldn't post to a public arena.
furthermore, in this case, giving specific rights to the continued use of our words to the site owners, is what we trade in exchange for access to the structure of a "free", conversationally-based, and public soapbox...
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
extraordinaire
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 03:26pm PT
|
How can we improve SuperTopo? Got feedback?
Let us know! (bottom of page)
|
|
The Larry
climber
Moab, UT
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 03:28pm PT
|
More boobs.
|
|
Avery
climber
NZ
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 03:31pm PT
|
"a person should be able to delete her own posts. I don't give a crap about 'thread integrity.' A person owns her own posts."
100% correct.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 03:34pm PT
|
More boobs.
Yours just aren't all that interesting.
But OK, here ya go
|
|
ncrockclimber
climber
The Desert Oven
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 03:42pm PT
|
a person should be able to delete her own posts. I don't give a crap about 'thread integrity.' A person owns her own posts.
agree, that is the way it should be.
|
|
nah000
climber
canuckistan
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 04:04pm PT
|
DMT wrote: "Blah blah BLAH BLAH! When you are paying me for content you get to decide. Not until."
hahaha. sorry for not sticking to 140 char's for ya.
who's paying for the soapbox we all pontificate from? you don't think you receive anything in return for your content, eh?
your words on your own website: unequivocally yours.
your words on cmac's website: "By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through SuperTopo services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant SuperTopo a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and distribute such Content on the Service for the purpose of displaying and distributing SuperTopo services."
i'm not seeing anything in there that says the license given to supertopo, that we all agree to by posting, is necessarily retractable at the whim of the poster...
which is, as it should be on a private service that you don't own and are of your own volition giving content to for "free."
bottom line: the day you pay for the forum structure and set your own t+c's is the day you can necessarily pull your own posts at whim. good luck finding the same audience and conversation on dmt.com
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 04:41pm PT
|
Lets unionize and go on strike until they meet our demands. I nominate ron to be our Representative. We should get a piece of the millions of dollars of ad revenue generated by our hard work.
|
|
nah000
climber
canuckistan
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 05:16pm PT
|
as always, to you as well DMT...
for del cross [who since deleted his post] and those who don't think i was taking a position on how it "should be"... here's your sound bite:
st's value and vitality is found in its finding a balance between being an aggregation of content and being an aggregator of content.
giving posters the ability to indefinitely "take all of their toys home" ruins continuity and tilts the balance too far away from st being valuable as an aggregation, leaving instead a giant public messaging board with little residual value.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!