RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Arpig -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:12:23 PM)

Valid points, as is usual from you Julia (Don't you ever get tired of being reasonable and right? Couldn't you just rant inanely once just for variety )[;)]

quote:

At the same time, when the site is overrun with childish insults, insults pointed at gender, age, or orientation... I don't want to be a part of that sort of conversation and I would disappear if those sort of posts became commonplace and acceptable.
I probably wouldn't disappear under those circumstances, but I realize that many would, which is why I don't advocate lesser Moderation, why I said a good compromise had been reached. Those like me who enjoy the nastier remarks get some leeway, and those who don't enjoy them have them reined in some. A happy medium.

quote:

and I block what negatively impacts me.

And clearly it works for you. And I'm sure it would work for others. I heartily recommend to one and all to do just this. If you see that a particular poster consistently annoys you, block them. Problem solved. I did it with the gator-feeder down in P&R for a while, because he just pissed me off with his idiocy. So a click on the Hide button and he went away.



NuevaVida -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:17:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

At the same time, when the site is overrun with childish insults, insults pointed at gender, age, or orientation... I don't want to be a part of that sort of conversation and I would disappear if those sort of posts became commonplace and acceptable.

I am okay with the label "thin skinned", but I prefer to look at it like this - I am attracted by some things, and repelled by others. I gravitate towards what I like, and I block what negatively impacts me. In my mind, the world is an energetic place, and I try to be choosy as to how I invest my energy.


I have to agree with you here.  I want to comment on this, and on RedMagic1's comment about how this site used to be fun and meaty.

I like meaty.  I like civil conversations about interesting ideas, concepts and practices, and comparing one person's view to another, and so on.  I like fun, too, but up to a point, when it comes to message boards.  I've mentioned before, I can get annoyed going through pages of banter that has nothing to do with the conversation, just to get back to the meat.  There are some posters who used to post here, and who apparently everyone misses, but admittedly I don't - dealing with pages of personal back & forth jokey comments that had nothing to do with the thread was one of the reasons I spent more time at Fet than here

As for all these Fet vs. CM comparisons, it's not one or the other for me.  Fet offers me something CM doesn't, and CM offers me something Fet doesn't.  The two forums I spent most time on at Fet are moderated wonderfully - there are no attacks tolerated, and conversation is limited to meaty substance, which floats my boat.  In one of the groups, all sorts of ways of M/s is discussed, and I've gotten some very good insight into myself by participating in that group.

As for CM=Less Meat, I think in the last few weeks I've been here more, because there HAVE been some really interesting/meaty topics being discussed.  Like Julia, I spend my energy in places that feed my mental juices.  Childish bickering, train wrecks, and three pages of fluffy bantering unrelated to the thread, does not feed those mental juices.  So I go elsewhere.  They are obviously enjoyable for others, because they invest their energy in them.  But it ain't my thang.





NuevaVida -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:19:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

I also don't care for the stroke-fest/bitch-fest that many threads turn into here.
And yet this thread is pretty much one big stroke-fest. Un peu ironique, non?


I haven't seen that.  I see lots of various opinions on the moderation of CM, and of various posting styles. 



Arpig -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:19:50 PM)

quote:

Not necessarily based on whether I value what they post, but based on whether they're willing to put the effort into changing whatever problems they see.
Hear! Hear! (thumps desk soundly!).

Very true, if you want more meaty topics, start some.

Down in P&R I got fed up with the Americo-centrism of the topics. I didn't start a thread bitching about it, I started some threads on Canadian issues (most died quickly...we really are a boring people it seems) and some on more general issues (some died, some went on rather well). If you can't be bothered doing the same, then (sorry Aynne...) STFU!



popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:22:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

Absolutely. My point is that more of the threads related to kinky sex should be like this as well. The site is not about collarme, but bdsm.

The fact that this doesn't happen has nothing to do with moderation.  It has much more to do with the imbalance of males to females on the site and the fact that most posts directed in this area tend to be wank material.  The threads that are kink based have a much greater response rate when they are started by someone who has a higher familiarity factor.  Go read the Mistress forum.  Those of us who have been participating in these forums for any length of time *know* that we're going to be annoyed by horny pups in our mailbox when that happens and frankly, it isn't worth the bother.

The site really is Collar Me because it is more dynamic based.  It's not 'hey, let's talk about fucking'.  Even the BDSM discussion board has very little about bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism.  It's crap like, "why do so many guys want to see a person on cam". 




This in no way reflects on you personaly LP -strangely they were initials I used to use elsewhere- but your comment reagrding my bold.
 
I have had a peek around the site, and have noticed a reaction to such questions raised. and the 'pack' as hes been discribed, descending on the poster, telling him (invariably) that this is what he is looking for: wank fodder.
 
But how do we (the pack) know that this was the case?
 
Maybe self moderation in instances like this would help keep the boards alive, topical and fresh?
Allow a new question to grow for a while without judging the question by the gender/longevity of the poster?
 
I had a little look for a certain topic earlier, a 'search' as is often recommended. Plenty to be found, most of which was destroyed as a topic by this very 'pack' mentality.
 
lets all give a thread a chance... and if moderators are needed in some cases, it may be there... to allow something to develop, rather than be stifled at birth.
 
pD



mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:24:27 PM)

And I guess that might be where this one here and that one there thinks moderation is evil and sucks and is uneven.

Because there are the two very distant ends, those who look for intelligent discourse, uplifting admonitions, and folks who get wood at trainwrecks.

I'm betting that this thread got to be 12 pages and about Fetlife and CM because alotta someones secretly wanted somebody to go way the fuck off on Alpha  or 21 or one or more of the other mods.

Trainwrecks are front page, the beautiful baby being born is buried on page 12.

(I cant even spell uplifting....talk about a trainwreck).



gungadin09 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:25:35 PM)

quote:

Arpig, i truely believe that just because something is free doesn't mean we can't comment on things if we feel they could be better.


i agree. Saying "deal with it or get out" is dismissive and unfair, regardless of whether it's free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
If you guys get the moderation kicked up, and I no longer enjoy this place, then what would your reaction be to my whining about how overly moderated the board is?


Assuming that i disagreed (as it happens, i probably wouldn't), but assuming that i did, i would still think that You had the right to voice an opinion about it, and that saying that You think there is room for improvement is not always the same thing as "whining". i would think You were wrong. If You made a good argument (as opposed to "whining"), i might debate it with You. But i would never say "shut up and deal with it, or get out".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
As far as I'm concerned, a compromise has been reached between those like me who really would prefer far less moderation and those who want more.


i agree. i think the style of moderation now is a good happy medium (well, i wasn't here before they changed it, but i still think so). Still, i bet the mods get awfully tired of hearing people giving opinions about how they should make it stricter, or less strict, than it is now. And yet- here we are, starting a thread about it, and they are NOT saying, well if you guys don't like it you can just leave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
So when I tell people to go elsewhere if they don't like it here, I'm not avoiding any issue, I'm simply stating my preference.


So what's wrong with other people stating theirs?

pam



angelikaJ -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:29:37 PM)

deleted for unproductivity to discusssion



NuevaVida -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:34:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And I guess that might be where this one here and that one there thinks moderation is evil and sucks and is uneven.
 

And people sometimes take it personally when others disagree with something they feel strongly about.

quote:


Because there are the two very distant ends, those who look for intelligent discourse, uplifting admonitions, and folks who get wood at trainwrecks.


Two distant ends, but there is also middle ground.  Some folks enjoy the extremes, though, and don't like the middle as much.  Kinda like preferring the chocolate cookie part of an Oreo, I suppose.

quote:


I'm betting that this thread got to be 12 pages and about Fetlife and CM because alotta someones secretly wanted somebody to go way the fuck off on Alpha  or 21 or one or more of the other mods.


I wouldn't doubt that.

quote:


Trainwrecks are front page, the beautiful baby being born is buried on page 12.


Annoying, isn't it?  I grumble at the Mister when he turns the news on, first thing in the morning.  I just ask, "What awful stuff happened, that we need to begin our day knowing about?"

quote:


(I cant even spell uplifting....talk about a trainwreck).

You train wreck, you.  But you're a train wreck I enjoy reading. [;)]



Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:37:23 PM)

~FR~

I would be quite curious to hear the opinions of the current moderators regarding this topic? It is great reading how the many posters have contributed to this yet I hadn't seen anyone asking the mods their opinions; what they have to contribute is just as important as our own opinions.



mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:45:45 PM)


quote:


Original: mnottertail
Because there are the two very distant ends, those who look for intelligent discourse, uplifting admonitions, and folks who get wood at trainwrecks.


quote:


Original: NuevaVida
Two distant ends, but there is also middle ground.  Some folks enjoy the extremes, though, and don't like the middle as much.  Kinda like preferring the chocolate cookie part of an Oreo, I suppose.


This is the thing, and therefore I will revise and extend my remarks, (which are substantially in agreement here, if you think about it)

Damn near 7 thousand people online right now, reading this site.

You can count the regular posters at maybe 100.  Used to be maybe 20 in the day.

It would be neat to have a count of people reading each forum as well as the overall count.  But in a way they got that.  around 300 posts here (and those are multi posts by oners.) and 3000 hits.

Major trainwrecks and the best I can say is Bowel Movement, because that poster has not (and I believe cannot) enjoin this thread.....some of those trainwrecks go 4 or 5 times that.  So, they're out there, Agent Scully. 

But the fun trainwrecks is where I think that EVERYBODY wishes it could be, like Tap Tap, or Holly's Meatloaf, or I Admit and like that.

Unfortunately, the world is a far more sinister place. 




VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:46:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

She starts more serious, content-heavy threads than anyone else I can think of right now. I've always been of the opinion that if you (generic) don't like the tone of the site or the content on the site then you either contribute to changing it or you shut the hell up.


Is that seriously the way you read my post?

Well, that was not what I said, but people tend to read what they want, not what is actually written

The bolded part is ironic, given that I have no idea what you think you have to do with that statement. Did you miss the word 'generic' in my post? I wasn't talking about you, and I wasn't even thinking about you, given that you contribute pretty heavily most of the time too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

The part I bolded is the important part of my point. Content cannot be judged to be more important for one, by another.

Let this be an answer to Bear too:

I'm going to rebold the quote to get across *my* point:

So if a predominantly P&R/P&ORS poster started complaining that there wasn't enough wiitwd content on CM...

I'm not saying that P&R/P&ORS content isn't valuable, or that posters who focus on those things are less valid. I'm saying that if that's what someone chooses to contribute then I don't think they get to complain about wiitwd content - that, very specifically, is what their complaints are less valid about. I'm not saying I value BFA because her posts/content have specific value to me (like I said, quite often they don't really tally with my life). I'm saying that I value her for being the change she wants to see instead of being a poster who is complaining about something they doesn't contribute to.



LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:47:18 PM)

I thought several had at some point.........thought I could be dellusional.



mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:50:33 PM)

You're certainly seeing double, LT sweetheart.  Delusional.



Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:50:45 PM)

VaguelyCurious....Yes I did read and understood what you wrote and I simply quoted as I saw a need to offer up another POV as I had interpreted it slightly different. If I had completely mistook what you meant then maybe the fault lies with me and I was not attempting to discount what you have to say.



LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:51:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popularDemand
This in no way reflects on you personaly LP -strangely they were initials I used to use elsewhere- but your comment reagrding my bold.
 
I have had a peek around the site, and have noticed a reaction to such questions raised. and the 'pack' as hes been discribed, descending on the poster, telling him (invariably) that this is what he is looking for: wank fodder.
 
But how do we (the pack) know that this was the case?
 
Maybe self moderation in instances like this would help keep the boards alive, topical and fresh?
Allow a new question to grow for a while without judging the question by the gender/longevity of the poster?
 
I had a little look for a certain topic earlier, a 'search' as is often recommended. Plenty to be found, most of which was destroyed as a topic by this very 'pack' mentality.
 
lets all give a thread a chance... and if moderators are needed in some cases, it may be there... to allow something to develop, rather than be stifled at birth.
 
pD

How do we know?  High percentage rate of cause and effect.  It's not an absolute.  My personal estimation is that it's in the high nineties. 

I will not speak for all women here, but I will tell you My personal experience.  Some of My kinks, such as strap on play and My enjoyment of m/m sexual scenes, cause the crap in My mail to go up almost any time I respond to a thread on those topics created by a new poster.  Most of the time, it's by the OP themselves.  It's mail that I don't want. 

I am by far *not* the only woman who has discussed this particular issue.  We've had countless threads on the it.  Most women just really don't want people asking us about our sex lives that aren't familiar to us.  It's much more effective, for Me, to tell people straight from the beginning to tell people that My sex life isn't the business of somebody that I don't know.

Think about it in real life terms.  How often do you walk up to a woman that you don't know and start talking to her about how you like to fuck?  When you do, how does that go over?  Does she sit and engage in a lengthy conversation with you about it?

Now, tell Me why you should expect that to be any different just because, instead of in person, you happen to be talking to women on the net?



VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:53:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

VaguelyCurious....Yes I did read and understood what you wrote and I simply quoted as I saw a need to offer up another POV as I had interpreted it slightly different. If I had completely mistook what you meant then maybe the fault lies with me and I was not attempting to discount what you have to say.

I didn't think you were discounting me - I thought that maybe I'd given the impression that I thought posters who avoided the General board were less valid, and I wanted to make sure I got that clear in response to you. [:)]



gungadin09 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:56:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear
I would be quite curious to hear the opinions of the current moderators regarding this topic?


i thought that the moderators weren't allowed to actively participate in threads, only moderate them. Having said that, as far as we know some of the moderators HAVE given their opinions in this thread.

pam



Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:56:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

VaguelyCurious....Yes I did read and understood what you wrote and I simply quoted as I saw a need to offer up another POV as I had interpreted it slightly different. If I had completely mistook what you meant then maybe the fault lies with me and I was not attempting to discount what you have to say.

I didn't think you were discounting me - I thought that maybe I'd given the impression that I thought posters who avoided the General board were less valid, and I wanted to make sure I got that clear in response to you. [:)]


Not a problem. Reading back I see I misinterpreted what you were saying and thus I goofed!



Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:57:04 PM)

quote:

Now, tell Me why you should expect that to be any different just because, instead of in person, you happen to be talking to women on the net?

I agree..we shouldn't do anything online that we wouldn't do in person.



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02