RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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



Message


heartcream -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:33:32 PM)

[approving]




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:34:23 PM)

One good thing I suppose is they can't tell if you are pissing on someone (whether they want you to or not) or shooting cum all over their face (or your ass) thru the screen, so that saves some moderations. 




juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:36:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

yea...some of us actually like getting called names. How are the Mods supposed to tell the difference?



Context is pretty obvious...

For example when a woman is pummeling a man about a political view point which they did not bother to support with facts, and the man calls her a whore or insinuates she is less because she has a vagina... in that context, it is pretty obvious it ain't consensual




HeatherMcLeather -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:37:17 PM)

But, but, most straight women ARE cocksuckers.

quote:

there is one thing that I'd like to see handled a bit more heavily and that is derogatory comments regarding sexual orientation.

OK, silliness aside, I agree more or less on this one. It is a kinky sex site, so we shouldn't be harassing people over their sexual choices. That's the one thing we shouldn't be picking on.

The words themselves shouldn't be banned, I can think of a lot of ways "cocksucker" can be used without it being an insult. Things like that are OK, it's just a word then, but throwing it at a gay man with the intent to belittle or demean makes it a weapon. That isn't OK. Pick a different word, it's just wrong on a site like this to use a person's sexual practices against them.

Strangely, I don't feel the same way about derogatory words for lesbians. Not that I think they are OK when used as an attack, but they just don't bother me the way it does when used against a gay man. That's really weird. Add it to the growing list of things to contemplate I guess.

Anyway, sorry for the sidetrack. I agree with LadyPact about this. The Mods should be extra firm about attacks based on a person's sexual preferences or practices. Otherwise we are all open for attacks of this nature, we all do strange things sex-wise. that's why we're here.





juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:40:20 PM)

quote:

The words themselves shouldn't be banned, I can think of a lot of ways "cocksucker" can be used without it being an insult. Things like that are OK, it's just a word then, but throwing it at a gay man with the intent to belittle or demean makes it a weapon. That isn't OK. Pick a different word, it's just wrong on a site like this to use a person's sexual practices against them.


Actually I see it as unoffensive to call a gay man a cocksucker, especially if he calls himself one.... it is offensive to call a het man one with the intention of using gayness as an insult. As if being gay is a bad thing




LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:43:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1
Yeah.  Or even, "You are posting that way because you're not getting laid," which I have seen for years, and just recently people said it to me for the first time, so I am bemused by it.  I've never understood that one either.  Suppose it's true.  Does sexual frequency have anything to do with someone's character or wisdom?  Mother Theresa, the know-nothing bitch.

Still, if a user does not engage and still gets personally attacked, that is a TOS violation.  The same umbrella covers both cases.


Maybe I'm a bit less on this one.  I'm thinking more like the reality vrs fantasy positions.  How much stock would you put in Mother Teresa's advice on sex, knowing she never had any?

(Slightly off topic, probably, as that has nothing to do with moderation.)




JstAnotherSub -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:43:57 PM)

I agree that personal attacks shouldn't happen, but I wonder how it could be decided what is too far.  Cocksucker, carpet muncher, ignorant bassturd, grow the fuck up, you are an idiot, and tha beat goes on-lol.

In a perfect world, we would not let pixels on a screen get to us, but,                I know I am guilty of letting it happen.

All I can say is I am damn glad I aint a mod!




juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:46:54 PM)

quote:

Maybe I'm a bit less on this one.  I'm thinking more like the reality vrs fantasy positions.  How much stock would you put in Mother Teresa's advice on sex, knowing she never had any?


She is the ultimate service submissive[:D]




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:47:55 PM)

not if she doesn't suck.




LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:48:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

not if she doesn't suck.

As I'm sure you meant it, that can be taken one of two ways.  [8D]




RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:48:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Maybe I'm a bit less on this one.  I'm thinking more like the reality vrs fantasy positions.  How much stock would you put in Mother Teresa's advice on sex, knowing she never had any?


None, but as you pointed to yourself, the content of the boards is more how to treat people and live in power dynamics than what to do in the bedroom.  And she ran an order for much of her life.

Still, even if you don't like that example, some of the strongest posters here have had illnesses or disabilities (or just life realities, like, well, deployment) that have kept them from being as sexually active as they used to be.  Their current physical situations don't suddenly turn them into fantasists.




SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:49:31 PM)

quote:

yea...some of us actually like getting called names. How are the Mods supposed to tell the difference?


Spending so much time in P&R reading the endless laments of the neo-con manginas, I often completely forget WHAT TYPE of site I am on... thanks for reminding me... it really SHOULD be considered by some before they bellyache.





SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:51:09 PM)

quote:

not if she doesn't suck.


And how is it you know she didn't?





Moonhead -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:51:26 PM)

To be fair, the only reason there is a politics and religion forum in the first place is to keep that stuff out of the rest of the forum.




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:52:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

not if she doesn't suck.


And how is it you know she didn't?




I may be of somewhat more advancing years than I would like most of the time, but I would have remembered it.

You can quote me.




Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:54:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne

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



Understood Mod 21. Though I was trying to convey a situation where you or the other moderators gave their input in a way which is not disrespecting the other moderators nor disrespecting the site owners. I know it is possible to be able to offer one's thoughts which ius quite honest yet it is neutral. In any case, I appreciate and say thanks for replying in a manner which you saw fit.




HeatherMcLeather -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:01:05 PM)

I read a little further and saw Julia's post, so I'm going to clarify a little bit.

If somebody posts in reply to a gay man and says:
"Now listen here, you little cocksucker, we're talking about eating pussy, so you don't really know."
I don't see that as attack.
But saying:
"You don't know anything about car repair, but that's to be expected from a cocksucker like you."
I would see that as an attack.

Both are saying the same thing basically, that his knowledge of the topic is limited by his being gay, but in the first, its funny and potentially relevant, in the second it's neither.

So it depends on the context, and the wording, and the intent. I agree that the intent of the poster can't always be determined, but it's usually pretty clear.


As to Julia's point about implying a straight man is gay, would, I would think, usually be wrong, but even then the context and intent would be the determining factor.




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:04:41 PM)

The notion of this infallable insight into subjective intent would be a real cocksucker for a Moderator, in my opinion.




Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:12:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

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.


In part, I see what you are getting at. The biggest issue in this area is for far too many years people such as myself had no choice but to suffer the indignities of being called those exact names in a highly degrading manner. I will confess that often I feel anger when I am either called a derogatory name for being a gay man and yet other times, I have more tolerance. It is a different situation and headspace when a male Dom refers to their slave/boy/sub as a cocksucking little slut. The intent, the meaning and the dynamics behind that is far different than a poster being called a stupid faggot in a thread because another is so desperate to win a debate that they resort to name calling and character assassination.

Yes this is an adult site geared towards kinky people and yes we do our best to wear our grown up pants though there is a time and place to use terms like homo, cocksucker, faggot and as I see it, on a site such as this it is not the place. I would no more tolerate a person degrading me by using those terms since that is solely reserved for my Sir to use. Sadly it seems to be far too easy for people to sling degrading comments about another's sexual preference or character in an attempt to belittle them in some fashion.

Personally I refrain from calling anyone in the heat of anger a homo or cocksucker or any other term slung against an LGBT person. I also have learned there is a right time and right place for me to use that anger in a constructive way and verbally educate that person.




mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:14:38 PM)

It would bother me more for someone to do one of those---

Some of my best friends are gay  thingies.

I really have a very very european/asian thought to sex.  I mean, what exactly in sex between two consenting adults is derogatory?  ever?     

Shit that would squick me personally, aint never ever gonna get talked about with me.  There is a reason that monsters are in my closet.




Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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