No win

No win (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

frazzle -> No win (1/19/2010 3:38:05 PM)
You do a search, you find a thread, its more than 6 months old. You reply on it, you're slammed for dragging up an old thread. You start a new one. you should have used the search facility!!!! Then we wonder why the lurkers dont post. No there wasnt a question there, just an observation.

DesFIP -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 3:43:23 PM)
Who has the line about this, that we're sadists so what did you expect? I would much rather see a new thread then read through six pages of a four year old one and then find a new post.

windchymes -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 3:49:06 PM)
frazzle is right. If you start a new one that's been talked about before, someone will be along shortly to scold you for not using the search function. Find an old one and leave a comment, someone else will be along shortly to scold you for "dredging up" an old thread.

frazzle -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 3:50:19 PM)
So would i. i saw another one today, and the minute someone said it was old, any sensible comments disappeared.

Bootstraps -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 3:51:00 PM)
Speaking of lurkers this is only my 2nd post....I agree I would rather a fresh thread come up than search through mounds of old topics etc., I think the only frustrating thing on some forums is when the questions pertain to something that is already in the faq's section.

frazzle -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 3:54:43 PM)
Welcome lurker (bootstraps) I lurked for a very long time. Ok we all get fed up with the wine and cheese threads, but even sensible questions can get trashed.

Level -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 4:04:42 PM)
All I care about is if it's interesting or not. Old? Don't give a shit. New? Great. Now, if you do bring one back from the dead, have something interesting to add to it, or ask about. And maybe start the post off with, "I realize this is an older thread, but..."

DrkJourney -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 4:04:42 PM)
I agree, I would rather see a new thread than flip through pages of an old one..."if" it's a subject where someone has something new to contribute. My pet peeves are the ones that are nothing but whines/rants that have been done to death and are nothing but someone trying to get attention so everyone can go and look at their profile, has to be the reason since they usually don't post anything else beyond the original post. Like the ones that say we are all whores and that we only want money, etc., there is usually at least one of these posted every week.

Bootstraps -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 4:06:27 PM)
Thank you frazzle I'll even forgive the lower case "b" (another one of my pet peeves) let me explain though. I realize that capitol and lower case are indication of where in the spectrum of D/s you stand, bend over etc,....however, it can get to be overly used. Personally, I know where I stand so it's really insignificant to me and rather a waste of time. Now back OT lol (if i post enough it will be evident that I am Goddess/Queen of OT discussions) [:D]

frazzle -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 4:16:22 PM)
if you say so. im confused with your response, but then im easily confused

Bootstraps -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 4:23:20 PM)
It's ok...I have a license in confusing people. Part of my charm I guess. Many times I read in chat rooms, forums etc., Dominants getting upset if they are not directed with the Capital letter. Like in my nickname here Bootstraps vs. bootstraps.

WyldHrt -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 5:30:31 PM)
Why not start a new thread and link to the old one? That way, people don't waste their time giving advice to someone who has been gone for 2 years (which is the reason some of us point out that a thread is old), but they can read the old thread to see what the OP is referring to. It also shows that the OP did do a search, and maybe has a new angle on something already discussed. I used to be on a board where this was a forum rule, and it worked quite nicely. Of course, if the topic is fakes, pro dommes, sub vs slave, or one of the other "frequent flyers", the thread is doomed from the second the OP hits submit anyway [8D]

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 5:34:51 PM)
~FR~ Why is it so difficult to use the search feature and then ask a question about the topic of interest yet based on what you found? Example: you want to explore the differences between bottom/sub/slave, so you do a search and read a bunch of old threads. If your question is answered, GREAT! You just learned something and you didn't have to rehash the same old saw, which invariably annoys the crap out of everyone. However, let's say you found an interesting post in one of those old threads and it sparked an idea that you'd like to explore. So, you create a new post and say up front, that you've been reading the archives, found the post, and wanted to explore the idea it inspired. Now everyone knows you've done your research and want to discuss this particular aspect of the subject. They can either respond or not, and yes, there will always be some who have to be assholes about telling you the topic has been done to death, but at least you've proved you're not a complete noob nor are you lazy. It's a win-win and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

dcnovice -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 5:44:00 PM)
Fwiw, I just tried searching "difference between submissive and slave" and "difference between submissive slave" and got zero results. Finally hit paydirt with "difference submissive slave." So the CM search engine is not the most useful tool ever devised. Also, the Search link is pretty subtle and easy to overlook.

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 5:50:43 PM)
If you treat the search feature like any other search engine, it works much better. I plugged in the keyword phrase "sub slave difference" and came up with over a dozen threads. I also got hits with phrases like "sub vs slave" and "sub or slave." I agree it would be helpful if the search feature was displayed more prominently, but it since it's at the top of every page, I don't have too much sympathy for people who are oblivious.

Bootstraps -> RE: No win (1/19/2010 5:52:04 PM)
I have used similar forums, with similar search features...they are not always reliable, terminology as mentioned above can be a factor. Can be frustrating when that happens, you make a new topic and end up being chastised etc., I do realize however, that sometimes that is actually done on purpose for some who like to be in a humiliating position

LadyPact -> RE: No win (1/20/2010 8:04:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan ~FR~ Why is it so difficult to use the search feature and then ask a question about the topic of interest yet based on what you found? Example: you want to explore the differences between bottom/sub/slave, so you do a search and read a bunch of old threads. If your question is answered, GREAT! You just learned something and you didn't have to rehash the same old saw, which invariably annoys the crap out of everyone. However, let's say you found an interesting post in one of those old threads and it sparked an idea that you'd like to explore. So, you create a new post and say up front, that you've been reading the archives, found the post, and wanted to explore the idea it inspired. Now everyone knows you've done your research and want to discuss this particular aspect of the subject. They can either respond or not, and yes, there will always be some who have to be assholes about telling you the topic has been done to death, but at least you've proved you're not a complete noob nor are you lazy. It's a win-win and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. This is My feeling on it as well. Attempting to add or address a particular person who posted something months or years ago is something like entering the place where a party was held and all the guests have left and adding to whatever dinner conversation they had. It's like talking to someone who left the room over a month ago in real life. It's not only lazy, but it shows complete lack of initiative and creativity. Not especially desirable qualities on either side of the kneel. As for the 'done to death' topics, yes, I agree those exist. In the majority of cases, the ridiculously elementary, not even level 101 questions that get asked come from those who haven't attempted the search feature, bothered to read hundreds of books available on BDSM or thousands of internet pieces on the subject. You can't expect the shibari class to have to revisit how to tie a square knot the entire time allotted for the demo. One of the drawbacks the internet has had on the BDSM population is that it no longer takes any drive or self sufficiency in obtaining information. In a world where google has become a household world, it amazes Me how many people don't use it.

KatyLied -> RE: No win (1/20/2010 8:18:45 AM)
I think that bumping old threads is annoying, from the standpoint of posters responding in the present to the OP, not realizing that the stuff is old and that the OP is most likely not even around at this point. I agree with the comment regarding starting a new thread and linking to the old, that way it is a fresh topic.

stella41b -> RE: No win (1/20/2010 8:37:48 AM)
Start a thread without a topic... People will still complain, but at least you'll confuse the lot of them in the beginning.

windchymes -> RE: No win (1/20/2010 8:57:02 AM)
Hehheh, stella, lol All those suggestions are nice but they don't take into consideration basic human nature. New people don't come in here knowing all the rules and regulations and policies and suggestions of protocol to follow so you don't annoy anyone. They see a page full of thread topics, something pops into their minds, they start what to them is a new thread. Or, if they did a search and dug up an old thread, there really isn't a printed list of instructions on a proper introductory lead-in to their particular question. Why not just a little more tolerance and realizing what's really important in the grand scheme of things? You know....don't sweat the small stuff? And, based on my experience working with a lot of PhD's, the rocket scientists would be the least likely to even acknowledge that there's a protocol to follow......[&:]

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875