After cutting thru the crapola of clear voter irregularity (on the "yes" side), my unscientific results are as follows
Yes: 67
No: 61
Draw your own conclusions.
so what does this mean? we can stop talking about this now? (please say yes :)
-- duckdive (surfless in con-neck-tee-cut)
what about dimpled surf chads? They're awesome.
Also, regarding voting irregularities....some surfer must be administrating a school network or something. Been caught cheatin, go directly to the dean you novice ;)
Considering that the majority of Stokereporters think its ok to post surf reports for smaller localized spots, but how about at least coming up with a nickname for the point. This seems like a somewhat fair compromise for both sides.
This would be interesting to find out:
What is the correlation (if any) between years of surfing experience and your voting decision?
Me= 10 years surfing, voted "no".
> Draw your own conclusions.
Close vote. We're divided and polarized like the rest of the country.
My suggestion for a happy medium: put a 24 hr time delay on reports not named OB or LM. If your intention is to simply share stoke and not drive surfers to a spot, then a time delay should be fine....
I think we should not report on Ft. Point. As someone else said , it's the primary source of tension on this site.
If you want to surf it, go learn it.
32 years.
Something the SFFP report haters may not have considered the Streisand Effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
All their complaining has done is draw more attention to FP. The best thing they probably could have done is said nothing and the reports would have quickly dropped of the home page of SR un-noticed by most. However, what has happened instead is that by their making FP into a major issue, it has become a continuous topic of conversation, resulting in far more publicity for FP than would have otherwise been the case. Moral of the story, the internet hates censorship and the best way to keep something quiet when someone else starts talking about it isn't to go over and start a shouting match, but to ignore them. This is especially the case when the discussion is on the internet and it's very hard to physically stop them from discussing your secret.
Duckdive also has to consider this. What would the repercussion be of taking FP off stoke report? DD works for Digg, which means he should be well aware of the Streisand effect - Digg saw an enormous backlash when they tried to block content regarding an AACS encryption key in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy Essentially the topic they tried to ban became the only topic discussed on Digg.
Potentially removing SFFP on SR could result in floods of posts about FP :) :) :)
But yeah, may I second KoK's opinion, and say that despite my personal preference for FP reports and publicity, I think it would be good for the site, in the short term at least, to get rid of SFFP.
Well, KoK, if you're going to drop your veil of neutrality, so will I. In my 12 years of surfing the Bay Area I have never surfed FP and I don't care to, and yet I voted No on reports.
> it's the primary source of tension on this site
Yeah, posting FP reports seems needlessly antagonistic. I don't understand the benefit when compared to the bile it spews forth.
And just as important, whether you agree with it or not, respecting the sanctity of a particular surf break is part of surf history and culture.
O.k. folkies. I removed the SFFP location in the name of hopefully eliminating the belly aching on StokeReport. Sigh.
Now that that's taken care of, let's argue about Flash on the iPad. I haven't heard enough about that.
are you sure you don't wanna talk about babs?
re. veil of neutrality....happy to send anyone the spreadsheet listing the votes. Drop me an email.
You can do your own #'s.
I'm not a tech guy, but it doesnt take an Apple Newton to spot the bad data that can reasonably be left out.
