RE: moderation interpretation?

RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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

Message

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 3:58:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Those who freak at the mods every time they delete or move something, need to better understand the concept of shoveling shit into the surf. Implied ongoing ownership is just bullshit and anyone who is in such a rush that they think they don't have to read the TOS on a website they SIGN A CONTRACT with, is essentially an idiot when they post 'what should be'. Never mind that giving up ownership and acquiescing to the actual owner of the data, the right to modify are fundamental customs on the internet in regard to content such as we post here. Then again assholes and opinions are inexorably linked. I've often thought that this stems from some view on the part of the author that they have created some 'intellectual property' that if left to rest in it's 'hallowed' spot, picked out 'specially' by it's author, that someday, along will come another who will read their marvelous creation and spark a revolution or generate the next occurrence of the big bang. Sadly, this is more likely a sign that they should simply decrease the dosage. i don't own the site and so therefore i personally own nothing on it. however, i can claim ownership of a thread if i start it, it's mine. if someone else starts a thread then they are the op and the thread is their's. context is everything. there is quite alot in what you have written that is rather trashing. the implied insults say more about you i guess. needles

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:00:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins however, i can claim ownership of a thread if i start it, it's mine. if someone else starts a thread then they are the op and the thread is their's. These statements are not generally held to be true on this forum. If you start a discussion that does not mean that you own the discussion.

popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:02:29 PM)
the OP sets the slope down which we all roll pD

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:05:04 PM)
each then to their own opinion. but if it's my words and i opened it then to me it's mine. if i were talking to a friend about a particular thread then i would refer to it as the op's thread. as i said....context is everything needles

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:07:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins each then to their own opinion. but if it's my words and i opened it then to me it's mine. It's a public forum, ergo "ownership" is moot.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:11:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins each then to their own opinion. but if it's my words and i opened it then to me it's mine. if i were talking to a friend about a particular thread then i would refer to it as the op's thread. ...and I'd refer to it as the thread started by the OP. Ownership is one of those things that isn't really subjective, or subject to opinion. Either you own something or you don't, and that's determined by the society around you. And in this case the society is pretty clear that you don't - how many times do we see newbies getting told off for calling threads 'theirs'? That's a pretty common sight here, and that general convention holds over to people who aren't newbies.

Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins each then to their own opinion. but if it's my words and i opened it then to me it's mine. It's a public forum, ergo "ownership" is moot. As I see it, the only thing we "own" is the words in a post we make, once we start a topic, ownership is lost once others begin to offer up their thoughts.

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:15:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins each then to their own opinion. but if it's my words and i opened it then to me it's mine. if i were talking to a friend about a particular thread then i would refer to it as the op's thread. ...and I'd refer to it as the thread started by the OP. Ownership is one of those things that isn't really subjective, or subject to opinion. Either you own something or you don't, and that's determined by the society around you. And in this case the society is pretty clear that you don't - how many times do we see newbies getting told off for calling threads 'theirs'? That's a pretty common sight here, and that general convention holds over to people who aren't newbies. well that is just nonsence. needles

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:16:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins each then to their own opinion. but if it's my words and i opened it then to me it's mine. if i were talking to a friend about a particular thread then i would refer to it as the op's thread. as i said....context is everything needles It has nothing to do with "opinion", it is in the TOS and the FAQs of the forum. I would suggest that you read those pages. And I am not saying this to be offensive, it just isn't the way you think it is... collarme owns the content we contribute

LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Where do the mods draw the lines? I'd say pretty much where TOS and the guidelines for the forums puts them. quote: You have put downs for sexual orientation and kinks. The guidelines make particular mention of this one. quote: What about the put downs of intelligence, weight or someone's looks? My personal opinion only. I'm not as harsh on these areas because 1) it's not specified and 2) I think it's harder to determine malicious intent. quote: How about bad language? That's use and context again. I don't think anybody out there is having a fit over a person saying that they had a bitch of a day. Calling somebody a bitch is another matter. quote: How about passive aggressive attacks vs. in your face snark? Neither, really. quote: 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. I personally don't have issues with that. quote: 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. No issue with that, either. quote: 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. I'd have to go with Mod interpretation. quote: Perception vs. reality. Speaking of which, I'm not particularly fond of false accusations on the boards. I tend to see them the same as blacklisting that's outlined. If you can't back up the claim, don't put it on the board about another poster. However, I'm probably harsher on that because I'm very much against people intentionally (or due to ignorance) lying about others. quote: 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. All I can say is, I know that the Mods have at least as much information as I do. TOS and the guidelines are there, as well as the team consulting that's got to be going on, but I'm sure that sometimes, it just comes down to them making a call from what they observe. I might think something is out of line that they don't. The same is true in reverse.

popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins each then to their own opinion. but if it's my words and i opened it then to me it's mine. if i were talking to a friend about a particular thread then i would refer to it as the op's thread. ...and I'd refer to it as the thread started by the OP. So therefore it is the OP's thread? semantics. pD

JstAnotherSub -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:18:54 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. this Regarding the fact that many times the mods can't know, unless it is reported, I think I have reported maybe 3 or 4 posts since I got here, and none of them were against me, that I can recall anhow. They were all where I thought someone was being over the line with someone who, IMHO, was just ignorant. Ignorant as in lacking knowledge or education in general or in a specific subject. I know this is an adult site, and everyone is sposed to wear their big girl panties, but, sometimes I wanna help the underdog. If something was said to me that bugged me enough, I would comment on it, then move on. As a general rule, I would prefer to be able to just say my peace, then move on, not have to give the mods another click or two.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:22:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popularDemand quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins each then to their own opinion. but if it's my words and i opened it then to me it's mine. if i were talking to a friend about a particular thread then i would refer to it as the op's thread. ...and I'd refer to it as the thread started by the OP. So therefore it is the OP's thread? semantics. pD No. It is the site's thread. Needles, or anyone else, agrees to that by hitting the submit button. There is no shade of grey.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:23:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popularDemand So therefore it is the OP's thread? semantics. Not at all. If I start a conga line it's not my conga line. CM's just one big bunch of conga lines.

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins well that is just nonsence. It isn't "nonsence" [sic]; it's a stone-cold fact. A person does not have "ownership" of threads, posts, or extracts of their words. It's a public forum.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins well that is just nonsence. ...well that was certainly a well thought out and convincing response. Thanks for taking the time, needles, you've been a great conversationalist.

popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:25:45 PM)
amongst friends, would you not refer to a thread you began as: "yours"? ownership? pD

mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:25:45 PM)
I would have spelled it nonsense, it would have been ever so much more thoughtful coming from me, then.

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 No. It is the site's thread. Needles, or anyone else, agrees to that by hitting the submit button. There is no shade of grey. Correct. Which is why the site has to remove anything illegal, underage, racist, etc - they are responsible for the site's content.

popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:27:14 PM)
possession is nine tenths of the law pD

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625