RE: moderation interpretation?

RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:14:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 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. I'd like to make two comments here. I realize it's a bit off of the topic of moderation/posts pulled, but maybe it ties in. I honestly believe that a very high majority of posts around here are made from folks who are fairly decent human beings. Most wouldn't take the things that you mention and try to turn them into a personal attack. I know this from My own experience. Even during very heated debates, it's rare that somebody's going to aim for the Achilles heel, especially when it's not warranted. That might even be why actually putting folks on moderation for a period of time doesn't happen all that often around here. My opinions on the difference on 'used to be' and 'never been' is pretty significant. Proven success, even if it is a recount of something that happened years ago is worthwhile to Me. It's the difference between what a person thinks because they haven't been in that situation compared to what they know because they've been there. This isn't to say that only the folks who have encountered the same, exact situation aren't valuable in their comments. If nothing else, they are trying to be helpful and supportive. I just happen to like evidence.

Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:17:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania 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 Yet it still reverts back to the intent and context in which calling a gay man a cocksucker is used. Too often it is used in a moment of anger and extreme frustration that it is not appropriate.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:19:14 PM)
Well, speaking as one cuntlicker to another, the Moderators already make judgments about what is and what isn't a "personal attack", I just think they should be less lenient when the potential attack is using the target's sexual practices.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:22:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania 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 Yet it still reverts back to the intent and context in which calling a gay man a cocksucker is used. Too often it is used in a moment of anger and extreme frustration that it is not appropriate. I would agree.... Let's put it this way... anytime you call someone a name regarding their sexual identity as a way of striking out at them, it is uncool... it is the anger, meanness factor, not the label. I know in my real life if someone says to me "what are you, a masochist?" I feel a twinge of defensiveness about it, but they do not know, so it is hard to explain how it might be offensive to people who are actually masochists.

mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:25:52 PM)
cocksucker is an all purpose word though, like Uff da. and it can be said in anger sure, but I doubt that most of the time anyone is thinking of a persons sexual orientation when they are using it, because they are angry. it should come as no great surpise to anyone who knows me that I have an adoration of 'real' cocksuckers. and that aint what I am thinking about when I use the word in anger. I like assholes as well, and it is a circumstantial use of that word. context is everything.

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:28:15 PM)
Hey, one of my favourite curse words is 'motherfucker'. I'm not slamming anyone for fucking a mother. (that would be rather counter productive to my.......fucking )

mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:30:38 PM)
It is actually rendundant, since (other than the one we ALL know about, watch that start another fight) you have to play park the caddillac in the garage, or if you will, put the pony in the barn to be one. So we know what you nasty motherfuckers been doing. don't write me, I don't believe that lying whore either.

Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:34:40 PM)
Nah...you're looking for a bevy of beauties to be lining up between your legs!

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 2:52:38 PM)
quote: We're not everywhere, and we don't read all the posts and all the threads, so often we only know there is a problem if someone hits the report button. This accounts for quite a bit of the "but Suzy said it on the other thread and nothing happened to her" types of messages that land in my inbox on the other side. Well thanks for letting us know you're not "Living Goddesses" like that charlatan Icarys always implies... Guys ... Cease operations on that pyramid we were building in their honor... and somebody take that chick out of her martini.

Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: We're not everywhere, and we don't read all the posts and all the threads, so often we only know there is a problem if someone hits the report button. This accounts for quite a bit of the "but Suzy said it on the other thread and nothing happened to her" types of messages that land in my inbox on the other side. Well thanks for letting us know you're not "Living Goddesses" like that charlatan Icarys always implies... Guys ... Cease operations on that pyramid we were building in their honor... and somebody take that chick out of her martini. That's the Resident Sadist's job to remove her from the martini glass. I'll just wait to be whipped and chained by Lance! [:)]

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:06:32 PM)
quote: It's funny. I recently unblocked someone (because I'm an optimist), and even though I have done my level best to keep the conversation civil, it seems I was still adding to mod workload. I hope you wore an elbow length rubber glove

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:08:58 PM)
quote: That's the Resident Sadist's job to remove her from the martini glass. I'll just wait to be whipped and chained by Lance! Fucking Canadian Masochists ... always trying to harvest a beating out of everything[:D]

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:10:54 PM)
quote: Nah...you're looking for a bevy of beauties to be lining up between your legs! We're looking into having a graphics firm paint them right onto his coke bottle bottom glasses.

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:20:45 PM)
quote: 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. What fucking pill does one have to take to become that big a fucking nit-picker? [8D]

sexyred1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:22:50 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? Where do the mods draw the lines? You have put downs for sexual orientation and kinks. What about the put downs of intelligence, weight or someone's looks? How about bad language? How about passive aggressive attacks vs. in your face snark? Everything is subjective right? If I reply strongly to a comment that someone makes putting women or subs down, since I am a female sub, I feel justified in commenting on the topic. There are some posters here who incessantly post negative comments designed to provoke women. I sometimes fall prey to that and reply in full snark mode; I am well aware of that. When I reply back, I feel justified in making a point. And yet, those same posters claim that I am personally attacking them, when in fact, they attacked a group that I am part of. Perception vs. reality. I don't think there is any solution to this topic other than people trying to take the high road, but that will never happen.

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:27:38 PM)
quote: 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. Okay, but you can't tell anybody, I was Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church until I was murdered by Heretic for finally enforcing the rules for personal conduct of priests, leaving him dejected and homicidal. But before I went to hell, I was privy to a lot of information you grunts aren't. Among them, that Teresa only took her teeth out to sleep.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:30:34 PM)
I think when the mods know it is over the line, they will step in. In the cases of people that go over the line, and I report their posts, and the mods decide that their posts should stand anyways (this has happened when I reported what I considered way over the line sorts of posts a couple of occasions) I knew the mods didn't see it the same way, so I had best hide the person I thought was over the line, so I won't be drawn out by them. Most of the time I haven't even needed to report it in PR, because the couple of times a couple of the posters got real ugly with me, it was reported by others. The board self polices like that.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:34:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Where do the mods draw the lines? You have put downs for sexual orientation and kinks. What about the put downs of intelligence, weight or someone's looks? How about bad language? How about passive aggressive attacks vs. in your face snark? Everything is subjective right? If I reply strongly to a comment that someone makes putting women or subs down, since I am a female sub, I feel justified in commenting on the topic. There are some posters here who incessantly post negative comments designed to provoke women. I sometimes fall prey to that and reply in full snark mode; I am well aware of that. When I reply back, I feel justified in making a point. And yet, those same posters claim that I am personally attacking them, when in fact, they attacked a group that I am part of. Perception vs. reality. I don't think there is any solution to this topic other than people trying to take the high road, but that will never happen. i can totally agree with sexyred here -- i dunno where the mods are expected to draw the line. are they expected to become mind readers and figure out if the person is getting into personal attacks, or just stating an opinion? honestly, i've seen FAR MORE personal attack based on intelligence (or the lack of it) which is just as offensive. should those posts get pulled, too? at some point, you're asking them to become superhuman.

Icarys -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:37:14 PM)
quote: Where do the mods draw the lines? Where they decide. That's how it works. quote: You have put downs for sexual orientation and kinks. What about the put downs of intelligence, weight or someone's looks? A put down is a put down. quote: How about passive aggressive attacks vs. in your face snark? Negative is negative. quote: Everything is subjective right? If you actually believed this then you would've written Perception vs. Personal reality instead of making it seem like there was a single way to see it. As below. quote: Perception vs. reality. Who's reality? You think you're justified in attacking someone who's attacking another but you don't have a fucking right either. (What? Are you the forum police?) That's your entitlement talking as usual. You're blind to your own failings. Oh sure, you'll tell everyone you have them but deep down inside, I think you push them out of the way so you can do what you want. Fuck you all a little more, now I'm going home. Don't worry, you're not alone.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:46:43 PM)
quote: figure out if the person is getting into personal attacks, or just stating an opinion? But that's exactly what they do now.

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875