RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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



Message

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 9:48:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious

Why Mr Fugue, you wound me!


I don't have that kind of luck :)



mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 9:53:36 AM)

Oh, sure ya do...she's got a gash, RIGHT THERE!



ModTwentyOne -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 10:12:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

So in keeping with that train of topic, I am curious to hear what the moderators views are on the OP? Obviously all the people who are posting on this topic have their own feelings to whether the tone of moderation is pleasantly relaxed, no strict enough, a nice blend of both or any variation between. We posters can speculate until the cows come home yet it still merely speculation on our parts. I still say that having a moderators POV from their perspective would be enlightening and invaluable; at least the views expressed here wouldn't be so one lopsidedly biased because we only have our own views to work from.



I would be surprised if any moderator answered your question. It's like standing next to the boss and having someone say, "so, what do you think of this company you work for?"... if you say it's great, people think you're biased or lying; if you say it sucks, you're out of a job. It's a no-win situation.

If I agree with something I tell Alpha; if I disagree with something I tell Alpha. Just as in an employment situation, she may have information about the situation that I am not privy to, and I may have new information to give her. She respects my opinion and I respect hers, even when we disagree on something. I trust her; if I didn't, I wouldn't have taken the job when she offered it to me.

In the end, all the staff work for the site owner(s). If I didn't respect them, if I didn't trust their judgment, and/or if I didn't feel that they value my services, I wouldn't keep doing it.

Mod21



VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 11:04:20 AM)


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.



I'm not going into this debate, but only want to point out that until you can do the same analysis with any other site, and hold those results up with the same time frame, it is comparing apples to oranges, as it is not possible to tell if it is site specific or a regular trend. The same thing could be said about another site (adult but not bdsm) that I had a group on and was a member of two others . Retention in the groups was small also. Not getting into a debate but unless you compare sites, no matter which ones for the same time periods you are getting skewed results



DavidLee44UK -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 11:28:00 AM)

i actually do split tests all the time in my job

and are people actually saying if you have for example 2 builders 1 a master craftsman and a cowboy

if the cowboy posts and the master builder doesn't you would trust the cowboy more

what about the fact that the cowboy posts because he mas more time on his hands

Based on internet averages, collarme.com is visited more frequently by males who are in the age range 55-64, have no children, received some college education and browse this site from home.

taken from alexa

so whats funny males are the most users of this site yet its the females who are more prevalant on the boards why

thats where your growth will come



DavidLee44UK -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 11:34:11 AM)

its also not about what you want to post

its about what people want to hear about

its called interrupting the conversation




DavidLee44UK -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 11:52:38 AM)

tried to start another thread for this but couldnt

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/collarme.com#

shows male vs female demographics of this site



GhitaAmati -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 11:58:12 AM)

Ive managed to stick around here since 2007 without ever being moderated or even warned. Apparently Im a very good girl who never does anything wrong.

Someone should let Daddy know that.....

Im actually ok with the childish nature this site can take. It kinda works for me.



LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:07:25 PM)

Since we're actually talking about moderation, there is one thing that I'd like to see handled a bit more heavily and that is derogatory comments regarding sexual orientation.  Throwing terms around in a negative way (like cocksucker or queer is a bad thing) isn't something I think should have a lot of leniency on a site like this one.  I honestly don't care if it's buried in Politics and Religion or not.  I don't think it belongs on the site anywhere.



juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:11:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Since we're actually talking about moderation, there is one thing that I'd like to see handled a bit more heavily and that is derogatory comments regarding sexual orientation.  Throwing terms around in a negative way (like cocksucker or queer is a bad thing) isn't something I think should have a lot of leniency on a site like this one.  I honestly don't care if it's buried in Politics and Religion or not.  I don't think it belongs on the site anywhere.



I agree with this....

That also goes towards kinks, which many people cannot post about other people's kinks without adding their personal commentary, and I am not talking "It does not work for me, but if it works for you" comments... but people that do XYZ are in some way sick, or gross, or abusive.... (there is a subset of people here who are really weirded out about daddy doms for example).

I just think, if it ain't your kink, why do you care?



NuevaVida -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:19:06 PM)

And let's not forget the mentalillness accusations. [;)]



LadyHibiscus -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:21:30 PM)

Agreeing with LP and Julia. Folks have commented elsewhere on the boards on how "heteronormative" CM is, and I think it's because the atmosphere isn't allowing anything different---there's a lot of that name calling and kink bashing that just flies under the radar.

Of course, it's up to the readers to stomp on that, IMO... it's not like the moderators are reading every post, and it's not like every post that's hinky is worthy of reporting.



juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:27:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

And let's not forget the mentalillness accusations. [;)]



Yeah, you mentally ill sub dropper, you[:D]



mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:28:31 PM)

and I disagree with that, the homo, and the cocksucker.......this is a fuckin sex site kids..its like if someone who was huge in stature was nicknamed tiny....

I don't get that.



RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:31:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Since we're actually talking about moderation, there is one thing that I'd like to see handled a bit more heavily and that is derogatory comments regarding sexual orientation.  Throwing terms around in a negative way (like cocksucker or queer is a bad thing) isn't something I think should have a lot of leniency on a site like this one.  I honestly don't care if it's buried in Politics and Religion or not.  I don't think it belongs on the site anywhere.



I agree with this....

That also goes towards kinks, which many people cannot post about other people's kinks without adding their personal commentary, and I am not talking "It does not work for me, but if it works for you" comments... but people that do XYZ are in some way sick, or gross, or abusive.... (there is a subset of people here who are really weirded out about daddy doms for example).

I just think, if it ain't your kink, why do you care?


I agree with both of you.



windchymes -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:32:25 PM)

I totally understand that, Kong




[:D]
(sorry couldn't resist!)



RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:46:48 PM)

This may surprise people, because I certainly wish the site atmosphere were more gay-friendly, but I don't agree with the idea of making sex-based insults a special category of personal attack, the way race-based insults are.  Asking the mods to police sex-related humiliation-speak on a BDSM web site is unreasonable.  My basic position on overall site moderation is here:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2978911

That whole thread is a good one, and discusses the philosophy of the "new moderation" when it was first put in.  Alpha had at least one long post in it, but I didn't dig up the link.

Calling someone a "cocksucker" should be dealt with like any other personal attack, which is to say, the poster who was attacked should (a) not respond in kind, (b) if the attacker continues, either on that thread or elsewhere, when the other person is not responding in that way, then (c) the attacker gets moderated.

For whatever reason, as LaTigresse and others have pointed out, a lot of people have not been doing (a) recently, and the boards are much angrier than they were a year ago.  Over the last couple days, things have chilled out a lot though, and I hope that trend continues.



LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 12:58:51 PM)

For ME.......and I know it is a humongous gray area.......gender and sexuality based slams are too situational for me to get behind banning them.

I am over all, hugely against creating any sort of 'police state' where people that often know one another well, have to walk on egg shells when joking around, just to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of a few. I've been the recipient of more than a few of them and I take them ALL in 'no insult intended' joking fashion. Regardless of intent. If it was ever meant in a mean way, I feel that my approach removed any power it had. Water off a duck's back. But in all sincerity I've never felt it was anything other than fun and completely harmless.

What happens in Politics and Religioun............that's their problem. As long as they are lobbing grenades at one another, they are leaving the rest alone.





LadyHibiscus -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:00:12 PM)

Oh I think Politics & Religion should be its own little free fire zone.



mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:01:57 PM)

Whatcha gonna do?  Your on a site where people talk about the very things you are warned never to talk about in mixed company, all your life......

Sex
Politics
Religion


Like fuckin' duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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