RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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



Message


Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 12:59:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

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



Hmmm, that I have no idea myself. I just assume they are able to actively participate in discussions yet choose to restrict their postings to just moderating as they feel is necessary.




popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:03:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

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?



I understand completely.

Although niether you (nor any woman/person) is being asked specifically to respond about your intimate and personal practices and prefernces in these threads.
Anyone can respond to any depth they chose, or not, of course.
That is anyones choice, and respected (by me) completely.

However, it was not the 'personal' I was refering to but the 'pack' who would kill a potentially intriguing thread with the "wank fodder" branding, many following suit to stem discussion, and I would have thought certainly placing a feeling of 'outsider' on anyone being brave enough to post for the first time.

There is no growth in the pack.

This in itself may be a reflection of some of the comments regarding Moderation techniques on this and other sites.

pD




LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:04:02 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. [:)]


And neither was I......I was just offering up another point of view.

While the main 'common' of the site is kink, in my time here I've seen enough differences to think that it is often a weak thread of common at best. If that was not the case, we would not have many of the thread areas we do have.

While I don't get or subscribe to most of the gorean thing, or female supremacy, and don't really see either as necessarily anything to do with BDSM.....I am not going to say that anyone who's primary interest here is one of those, versus BDSM, that their posts or opinions are less valid over all than a poster who's posts are more BDSM related than otherwise.

Perhaps I am not communicating my thoughts correctly and/or perhaps I read your initial post wrong. My brain is not functioning well today for a myriad of reasons.




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:05:02 PM)

I
DONT
KNEED TO
TALK TO
YOU!!!!

YOU ARE BANNED!

I AM MODERATE!!!!! I AM DOMINATE!!!!

MODERATEDOMINATE00




LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:06:11 PM)

[:D]

Thank you Ron!




popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:07:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: annonymised for the record

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

please, could someone tell me what on earth all that abbraviation means?

pD




Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:08:06 PM)

ROFLMFAO




Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:09:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popularDemand

quote:

ORIGINAL: annonymised for the record

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

please, could someone tell me what on earth all that abbraviation means?

pD


wiitwd = what is that we do

P&ORS = Polls and Other Random Snippets






Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:10:22 PM)

quote:

My brain is not functioning well today for a myriad of reasons.

Vaginocious perhaps.

Vaginocious:
          A:Irritability caused by an uninviting stick in the puss.
          B:Rash cause by said stick that may take weeks to heal.




VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:11:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popularDemand

There is no growth in the pack.

See, I don't know about that. The group of posters in AAMistress grows slowly, but it also consistently retains its members in a way that the crazy-fest threads in AAMaster often don't seem to.

Looking at it objectively (if I can) then stamping on wank threads is a bonding thing - that's how I've always seen it. It's women reasserting to and through each other that they don't have to bow to unwanted attention, and that makes them(/us, I suppose) feel good whether or not they(/we)'re misreading the intention of the original poster.

Another thing is that it's called 'Ask A Mistress', not 'coddle people who don't pay attention'. There's an FAQ in capital letters at the top of the page explaining how threads like that are going to go. Anyone who spends five minutes glancing through the first page of threads will see for themselves how a thread like that is going to go. People who are disinclined to read and think before they type are another subset of posters that I personally don't have an awful lot of patience with.




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:11:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popularDemand

A snip to: LadyPact

I understand completely.

Although niether you (nor any woman/person) is being asked specifically to respond about your intimate and personal practices and prefernces in these threads.

pD


I can tell you that day in and day out guys ask these Dominatrixes shit that even makes me blush, constantly. (not on this thread)  Just as nastily and nosily as they can.

And I ain't even saying Joey, saying that. 




LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:13:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

My brain is not functioning well today for a myriad of reasons.

Vaginocious perhaps.

Vaginocious:
          A:Irritability caused by an uninviting stick in the puss.
          B:Rash cause by said stick that may take weeks to heal.



If only it was that simple.




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:14:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

ROFLMFAO


Rolling On The  Floor Laughing My Fuckin Ass Off.

(hey, everybody else is doing the explaining of contractions)




Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:15:41 PM)

quote:

If only it was that simple.

I'm just giving you a spin..I hope it's nothing serious and I hope you feel better.




VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:15:45 PM)

While we're at it, what does the mn in mnottertail stand for? [8D]




Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:16:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious

While we're at it, what does the mn in mnottertail stand for? [8D]

Molecules for nuts.[:D]




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:19:33 PM)

Minnesota.

And I agree with VC in the main.   Thousands of fakes and assholes and real people come and sign up for CollarMe every day, and maybe 20-50 a week come here to the bright side and post, and start falling into certain (for lack of a better term) forum comfortabilities.

Out of that maybe 1-5 a week stick?  I dunno the number, it is small.

Like I said, over 7000 people on this side right now, and how many post? 100-200 max? 




Arpig -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:20:42 PM)

Nope, its short for My Nob...as in suck my nob. this IS Ron we are talking about.




VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:21:14 PM)

Minnesota?

I feel kind of...let down. I thought it was going to be more significant than that. :-(




Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:21:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Nope, its short for My Nob...as in suck my nob. this IS Ron we are talking about.

[:D]




Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875