RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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



Message


mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:21:51 PM)

Massive g(N)arley Object.   Large Hadron Collider was already taken.




Arpig -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:23:58 PM)

Ever notice how when a contentious thread goes on too long, it eventually ends up being about Ron and blow jobs?

And that we all agree and get along then.




Phoenixpower -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:27:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

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


and there I thought it would mean "mad nut"...or "mad nutter" [8|]




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:27:57 PM)

Let me show you girls what you're dealing with.

[image]local://upfiles/61037/BF37BF813B5F47DB9FD7D4F024589384.jpg[/image]




ChatteParfaitt -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:28:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Ever notice how when a contentious thread goes on too long, it eventually ends up being about Ron and blow jobs?

And that we all agree and get along then.


You say that as if there is something, anything, more important than Ron and his blow jobs.

Shesh, where do you come up with this stuff?






LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:28:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popularDemand
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.

Let Me assure you that you are quite mistaken.  One that immediately comes to mind was a recent "do you make your sub suck your strap-on".  That's a real thread.  It's only one of thousands over My four years here.

quote:

Anyone can respond to any depth they chose, or not, of course.
That is anyones choice, and respected (by me) completely.

That works both ways.  If I happen to be the first person to respond to a thread by copy/pasting the bit in the Mistress FAQ section about why the "how many Mistresses here are into <insert favorite kink here>" bit, My response on that thread has nothing to do with if other women want to answer it or not.  I might be the only person who thinks a thread is a specific attempt to gather wank material.  How I answer doesn't change the way other people chose to respond. 

quote:

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.

I've said this earlier in the thread.  I'm not in the position to be terribly concerned on this one.  If anything, I'm the gal who does suggest that people get off of the net and get out to the real world to see how this stuff works.  The guys who get a little realization on how to talk to kinky people in the real world don't tend to do it here, either. 

quote:

There is no growth in the pack.

Frankly, I'm going to disagree with you here.  It may not be how you meant it, but the pack........  The folks with experience?  Those are the ones that I get My personal growth from.  It doesn't come from the 'I've always had this fantasy' folks.  One of My recent comments on the "I want" thread was about the fact that I want the 301 threads to be more abundant, rather than the 'why won't this male Dom talk anymore' stuff.  Nobody wants to stay in the beginning stages forever.

Imagine yourself at a lecture.  Do you really want the lecture to start over every fifteen minutes when somebody enters the room?

quote:

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

pD

I have to differ with you there.  None of this has anything to do with moderation.  As I see it, moderation has everything to do with the Mods doing their job as applying TOS.  My personal line in this falls to a general rule of the ability to disagree with a comment, rather than personally attack a poster. 




Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:30:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Ever notice how when a contentious thread goes on too long, it eventually ends up being about Ron and blow jobs?

And that we all agree and get along then.

Ron's just intermission. What's to disagree on when he goes into his routine.[:D]




Arpig -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:32:20 PM)

quote:

You say that as if there is something, anything, more important than Ron and his blow jobs.
Hockey.

Americans![8|]




Arpig -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:35:41 PM)

quote:

Ron's just intermission. What's to disagree on when he goes into his routine.
Very true. After all, who doesn't enjoy a good blow job now and then.




ChatteParfaitt -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:36:00 PM)

Canucks !!

And don't tell me *that* can't be viewed as a vicious personal attack !! So theeeeeeeeere !!




Arpig -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:37:49 PM)

ALPHA!!!!!!!!!

I'm being picked on!!




LadyConstanze -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:38:34 PM)

I agree with LP, usually most of the "What do you think about... How many of you are into..." threads are just wank fodder, there are thousands of threads dealing with that fetish in the archives, so if it is for information, why not read those? Additionally if you reply to those threads, guess what? You get spammed with requests for this fetish and many others, and not by people who are remotely near you, oh no, guys who want you to describe in detail what you would do to them. I fail to see any "growth" in that




LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:40:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
  My personal line in this falls to a general rule of the ability to disagree with a comment, rather than personally attack a poster.  [/color]



That is the part that really torques me, even though I know for a fact I've been guilty of doing it. But the part that bugs me most is when a person is called on it, or does it simply because it was done to them. That's the childish shit and the stuff that moderation does get huge bonus points for.

It's that whole, who the fuck cares if a 25 yo idiot calls you (figurative) a brain dead whorish cunt, if you are a mature 49 year old woman you should be able to rise above it and let it lay. But all too often, the mature 49 year old jumps in with both feet and drops to the level of the 25yo idiot and makes an even bigger fool of themself than the 25 yo idiot did to begin with. Because they justify it by saying or implying the whole "well they did it first!!!"

I try to remind myself of that trite saying of "Be the change you want to see". Because the dumbass 25 year old isn't going to learn a fucking thing from the 49 year old if the 49 year old is acting just as dumbass as the 25 year old.

And I killed LadyP's purple...




Fetters4U -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:42:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1
Also, Fetters4u, if you are interested in making a scientific count of changing rate of newbie retention on the boards, you could count the average number of total posts made by someone who started an introduction thread in the first three months of 2008, and compare it to the same statistic in the first three months of 2011. The difference is clear. The only thing up for discussion us the reason for that difference.


That would be hard to extrapolate accurately -- some find the boards early, some find them late. You would need to compare the numbers from 2008 now, with the numbers for 2011 in 2014... I'll get back to you on that one :))

Some (me for one) post often but never (so far) did an intro. There is more competition from other sites now. Also, if folks leave after meeting a mate, them CM being more-successful could make people leave. I feel pretty sure whatever the reason is, it isn't hannah. Her outrageo... er.. interesting posts in "As the Collar Turns" were what pulled me into the boards in the first place.  




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:42:11 PM)

But doesn't that imply that part of the site moderation is at, Hey, Fuckhead!!!!! You said you were an adult when you signed up.....

And if this is how adults act.......... 




LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:44:05 PM)

Exactly.

It appears that it is often the assumed acceptable behaviour of adults is usually at question.




Fetters4U -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 1:54:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
Since my demographic is men, they are all "real" as far as I can tell, meaning they exist in the objective universe and are not only an internet fabrication. Women have been rare on this site since day one.


I suspect the problem I see is scammers trolling for victims. They seem to be mostly posted as female profiles (although they read like male ones). I never look at male postings but I suspect that the problem there is fakes, which present differently. In any case, my point is that any CM count of members is way inflated compared to the number of real, will-meet-you-for-coffee people.  




Fetters4U -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 2:02:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

Also, Fetters4u, if you are interested in making a scientific count of changing rate of newbie retention on the boards, you could count the average number of total posts made by someone who started an introduction thread in the first three months of 2008, and compare it to the same statistic in the first three months of 2011. The difference is clear. The only thing up for discussion us the reason for that difference.


Well, what have been the major changes here since that date? Is that what you are getting at?


My point exactly. You cannot compare 6 months with almost 4 years. Simple maths on the numbers won't work.

A lot of things I might have posted on or asked, I didn't, because I found them in the archives. Did we have such a complete set of archives in 2008? With time, the number of intelligent questions will drop because the answers are already here.




ChatteParfaitt -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 2:18:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fetters4U


I suspect the problem I see is scammers trolling for victims. They seem to be mostly posted as female profiles (although they read like male ones). I never look at male postings but I suspect that the problem there is fakes, which present differently. In any case, my point is that any CM count of members is way inflated compared to the number of real, will-meet-you-for-coffee people.  



I think that is true of any online BDSM community: The online only fantasists outnumber the willing to meet types.

A side issue to some of the chat issues is that the other side (for whatever reason) is very meat market mentality. As such, it's wanker and scammer friendly. Naturally, some of that attitude floats over into collar chat. Threads seeking wank fodder or whining about fakes get far more attention then they deserve (IMO) but then we are a group of verbal people who like online chat boards, go figure.

When I think back to how new posters are received by the group, I recall that those who come in having lurked for awhile to see what we're all about and how they can fit in seem to do quite well, regardless of their gender, orientation, experience or any other factor. As in the majority of human interactions, a minimal level of social skill and politeness grants you nominal acceptance.


BTW Arpig: I'm *watching* you, hockey puck !




popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 2:19:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

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





quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

ROFLMFAO


Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Fuckin Ass Off.

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


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious

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

Molecules for nuts.[:D]


thank you... I think

pD




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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