by Josh Lewis » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:42 am
by Bob Sihler » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:41 am
by Deltaoperator17 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:04 am
by Josh Lewis » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:26 am
by CBakwin » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:26 pm
by rgg » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:20 pm
CBakwin wrote:Maybe the additions or corrections could be added in a big , long , thread like this one, to each mountain page. That way readers could gage them for what they might be, in case they are just a difference of opinion.
by lcarreau » Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:32 am
by Deltaoperator17 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:00 am
Josh Lewis wrote:If you read the other 20 pages, you would know that that is not going to happen.
by Josh Lewis » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:12 am
by lcarreau » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:19 am
by sierramtngoat » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:34 am
by mrchad9 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:47 am
sierramtngoat wrote:The only real issue I have with mountain 'ownership' is that a user is allowed to delete it after dependencies have been established; this action causes summit log entries to vanish and creates broken links on list pages. There should be a policy added that once a peak is either on a list, has a route, or a summit log has been signed (any dependency really), then the owner should not be able to delete the mountain entirely; perhaps deleting his content would be acceptable, but not to the extent that the record for the peak has been deleted. 'delete my page' (or whatever the feature is) could wipe the page and set the peak to an 'up for grabs' status. Perhaps there can be a link users can click on that will show orphaned peaks? Also, if it is possible to adopt a peak, a snapshot should be made at the moment of adoption so that the peak can be restored to something if the new owner decides to be malicious and delete the peak that he/she adopted.
by mvs » Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:13 am
by Marmaduke » Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:07 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests