RE: moderation interpretation?

RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:50:53 PM)
quote: You can love it and keep it and call it George if you want; doesn't make it truly yours. For you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlVqfC8-UI

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins it's not like i'm claiming copyright or anything. but should you care to go back through the pages of this thread you will find that someone said 'i was glad to see Heather's thread come back' that implies ownership in exactly the same context as i have been using it. You weren't claiming copyright, no. But you were saying to the beardy one whose name I can't remember that since a thread is yours you're more entitled to get shirty with the mods (and with him) about it being moderated. Which is bullshit. And like RF said - someone else saying something doesn't actually make it right. And putting the word context in really big letters doesn't do anything much either. i have no idea what you are talking about. i have never said anything of the sort throughout any of this thread or any other. nore would i condone anyone else saying that. you are missing my point entirely and the context in which words are used means alot. needles

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:57:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins 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

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 4:57:51 PM)
quote: 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. If you accused someone from New Hampshire of discrimination for having started a sentence with the declaration "caulk-suck-ah" you would be laughed at b6y judge and jury alike. Because in part's of NH, it's considered a 'greeting'.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:00:07 PM)
Here is the context you originally said it quote: for instance when it comes to threads being 'hyjacked'. as was the case the other night with a thread of sexisubi's. now if the author of the thread agrees that the thread needs moderation then cool. but if that had been my thread then i'd have been a bit peeved to be honest It is not up to the person who originated the thread to decide anything about it.... You know Needles, I am not saying this in any sort of disparaging way, we have all been mistaken about things... there is no shame in that. When we are mistaken it might be a good idea to admit it and move on.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:02:47 PM)
the way i read her post is that she would've been upset, not that she would have some right to gripe at the mods about it. those are two totally different things.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:05:25 PM)
No, that post specifically states quote: for instance when it comes to threads being 'hyjacked'. as was the case the other night with a thread of sexisubi's. now if the author of the thread agrees that the thread needs moderation then cool. but if that had been my thread then i'd have been a bit peeved to be honest That implies that the thread originator has some sort of rights over the thread, they do not.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:05:36 PM)
<ed because I thought you were talking to me rather than Julia, so nm.>

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:07:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins 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 but i still don't see what you are reading. there is nothing there that says i can be shirty to mods just because i started the thread. i have never suggested such a thing anywhere. so again, i still have no idea what you are talking about. my words above have no relation to what you have stated. i'm saying i will refer to the thread as mine as i and not someone else started it. so in that context, which everyone is choosing to ignore. you are also ignoring my opening sentence in the above rather conveniently. hey ho, i have tried to help people understand where i'm coming from on it. needles

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:08:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep the way i read her post is that she would've been upset, not that she would have some right to gripe at the mods about it. those are two totally different things. exactly, thank you xx

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:11:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins but i still don't see what you are reading. The whole point of his post (I think - as far as you can ever be sure with this guy) was that people getting shirty with the mods is useless, as is people thinking their post is their own intellectual property. Your response was basically 'well if I started a thread then it's mine, and you're being insulting.' You don't think an 'and therefore I'm entitled to get shirty, hence my offence' was pretty heavily implied by that? As for people ignoring your first sentence: it was pretty heavily contradicted by your second, and that's the one you've failed to retract, so that's what people concentrate on. <ed cuz I fucked up the quoting>

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:12:20 PM)
You are looking very accuracy this evening, Julia.

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:15:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania No, that post specifically states quote: for instance when it comes to threads being 'hyjacked'. as was the case the other night with a thread of sexisubi's. now if the author of the thread agrees that the thread needs moderation then cool. but if that had been my thread then i'd have been a bit peeved to be honest That implies that the thread originator has some sort of rights over the thread, they do not. my point was about 'hijacking'. i was mearly putting thoughts over, speaking out loud. sometimes a thread is moderated for not being on topic, but that doesn't mean that the person who starts the thread minds that, especially if they are taking part. i'd by a bit peeved if in 'a thread i started' it was bantering along and people were having a laugh, bickering or what-have-you and then it was moderated for not being on topic. my point was that sometimes it just doesn't matter. in that instance the only person with the issue is the mod. unless of course a complaint has been made about the thread, in which case i asked could an explanation to that point be given so that at least the op knows why. this thread wasn't supposed to be a huge deal, and i said many pages back that i had had my answers from the powers as well as others and was happy with that. needles

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins i'd by a bit peeved if in 'a thread i started' it was bantering along and people were having a laugh, bickering or what-have-you and then it was moderated for not being on topic. quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins i have never said anything of the sort throughout any of this thread or any other. nore would i condone anyone else saying that. You're lacking consistency.

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:22:43 PM)
quote: 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. Surrrrrre ... you can 'personally' own anything you like... I WASN'T referring to such I was referring to the fact that the ownership. However, when you post something, on a BBS you give up entirely rights of exclusive use, and it even becomes and remains published on said site at the pleasure of it's owners. So in legal terms, which is really the only leg, if any (in the aforementioned case _none_), you have to stand on. My apologies, I thought concrete realities mattered in the discussion too. Live and learn. quote: there is quite alot in what you have written that is rather trashing. the implied insults say more about you i guess. Mmmmmm... I think that horse has already been whipped hon. But factually speaking, when I 'insulted' as you seem to taken some amount of exception to, was in reference to a category of behavior exhibited on the internet by people who don't give a fuck about their rights in the first place. And while I am dead certain there are many who don't even know what a TOS agreement is, and might feel insulted. I assure you, it's no more telling of one's character than when one gets twitchy and starts cherry-picking your post for motive and claiming ownership or even SOME knowledge of what was going through your head when you typed something.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:24:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 You are looking very accuracy this evening, Julia. I am going to choose to take that as a complimentary, thank you.

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins but i still don't see what you are reading. The whole point of his post (I think - as far as you can ever be sure with this guy) was that people getting shirty with the mods is useless, as is people thinking their post is their own intellectual property. Your response was basically 'well if I started a thread then it's mine, and you're being insulting.' You don't think an 'and therefore I'm entitled to get shirty, hence my offence' was pretty heavily implied by that? As for people ignoring your first sentence: it was pretty heavily contradicted by your second, and that's the one you've failed to retract, so that's what people concentrate on. <ed cuz I fucked up the quoting> ah well VC therein lays some of the problem with just written words. i'm afraid you are putting into that what you wish to. as far as i was concerned all i was saying is that i personally don't own the site therefore nothing on it. however, as i keep saying and getting headache doing so, i will refer to it as my thread as i and not someone else started it. that is all. i have at no time been shirty with mods. i wasn't sure if what was written was directed purely at me or the site as a whole. but some of the wording isn't exactly...called for. reducing meds, assholes and opinions...... i didn't actually say i was insulted as i have no idea about where it was aimed. the fact is in everyday language i will refer to a thread i start as my thread, just the same as if you had started a thread i would refer to it as yours. that is the context of the 'ownership'. doesn't mean i think i can wrap it up and sell it. needles

popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:25:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins i'd by a bit peeved if in 'a thread i started' it was bantering along and people were having a laugh, bickering or what-have-you and then it was moderated for not being on topic. quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins i have never said anything of the sort throughout any of this thread or any other. nore would i condone anyone else saying that. You're lacking consistency. it would appear you've lost that "context" thing during multiple quotasms. pD

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:26:42 PM)
quote: this thread wasn't supposed to be a huge deal, and i said many pages back that i had had my answers from the powers as well as others and was happy with that. I am glad you got your answer...

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:28:23 PM)
quote: 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. I agree ... I think being mere author of the first post in many cases means LITERALLY NOTHING.. someone else often takes the thread through some statement or topical assertion and begins steering the ship. And all the assertions of 'ownership' are in general the boohooing of OPs without enough charisma, fresh ideas, or perhaps even an idea worthy of continued discussion.. to keep a thread 'theirs'. I can't imagine myself doing more than a little ball-busting over a hijacked or deleted thread after the horse has left the barn.

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.179688E-02