RE: moderation interpretation?

RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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

Message

ModTwentyOne -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:31:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins 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. And therein lies the issue. It's not moderation by popular vote. By saying "you don't own it", we're also saying, "it's not up to you if a hijacking gets pulled." In other words, some days, you're just going to be "a bit peeved."

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:31:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins 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. Well in that case...what on earth did that have to do with the post you were quoting? And I'll also point out that you weren't just talking about 'referring to' a thread as yours; you specifically used the word 'claim', which has a much stronger meaning.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 You are looking very accuracy this evening, Julia. I am going to choose to take that as a complimentary, thank you. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Accuracy people get me hard as a rock. (Context. [8D][8D][8D])

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:34:44 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. seriously VC i'm missing your point. you have taken two things to link together and the first is out of context for which it was written. i do have the right to feel peeved, narked, upset, niggles, anything at all that means i'm disappointed that a thread has been moderated for not being on topic where it actually appears within the thread that everyone is happy with the way it's going. that doesn't mean i'm going to have a bitch fit at the mods, what it means is that i'd like an explanation as to why. this thread has swung back and forth being on and off topic. it's not always a bad thing. you are putting your own thoughts onto my words in aneffort to create something i really do not mean. it was actually very simple. keep implying what you like, i know exactly what i mean and if the mods are unsure i'm sure they will contact me about it but i'm not bothering to try and make myself understood anymore just so it can be picked apart. needles

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:39:56 PM)
Honestly? I didn't think of those particular quotes as being out of context because they were both pretty recent, and I guess I kind of expect people to be able to follow the gist of a thread and remember the long versions of the posts. But if you want to stop talking then that's fine, I won't continue the discussion.

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:40:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins 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. And therein lies the issue. It's not moderation by popular vote. By saying "you don't own it", we're also saying, "it's not up to you if a hijacking gets pulled." In other words, some days, you're just going to be "a bit peeved." yep, i got that along time back in this thread. that's why i asked about having an explanation as to why it was deemed that it needed modding if someone wanted to know for whatever reason. some are trying to create big issues out of such a small figure of speech. cheers. needles

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:41:00 PM)
quote: 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. I do not wish to be a stickler, but I would rather be referred to as OP, "original poster" or "Originating Poster"... I really feel no ownership of a thread to call it mine... I will say "the thread I started" or "I started a thread" As you can see, it rubs people the wrong way when we get possessive of threads...

popularDemand -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 5:41:16 PM)
jolly good pD

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 6:22:28 PM)
using fast reply.... I've started a few threads here and there in my time here. I can't say I ever think of them as 'mine'. The original idea was mine.....but as soon as I toss it out here, it is public property. Much like most of our photos. We might like to think we own our words here, or our photos here.........but we don't. It's part of the gig. I've often come back and thanked others for their contributions to a thread I've begun but it has nothing to do with any sense of ownership. Only for their time to contribute the the train of thought I began.

tazzygirl -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 6:49:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact If I never read that somebody is only interested in women because they've never had a "real man" ever again, it won't be a great loss to Me. 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. To me, if someone attempts to insult with something that isnt true, why worry. If someone attempts to insult with the truth... agree and take the piss out of it. I am a slut, self admitted and fully embracing that side of myself. Some take it as an insult. Like the term "bitch" if someone calls me a "slut" i thank them. Hey, I worked hard to attention both titles. [;)]

NuevaVida -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 7:11:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious CM's just one big bunch of conga lines. Where's sunny? This should seriously be a quote of the day. [:D]

VideoAdminRho -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 7:47:44 PM)
FR~ And some members wonder why the Mods drink [8D]

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 7:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho FR~ And some members wonder why the Mods drink [8D] Is that a perk of the job?

VideoAdminRho -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 7:56:55 PM)
No, just a result of too much time in P&R. [;)] and yes, I was kidding.

Wolf2Bear -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 7:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho FR~ And some members wonder why the Mods drink [8D] Is that a perk of the job? Rum?

tazzygirl -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 7:58:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho No, just a result of too much time in P&R. [;)] and yes, I was kidding. I would gladly moderate the P&R section for you. [:D]

VideoAdminRho -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 7:59:40 PM)
quote: I would gladly moderate the P&R section for you. [:D] You'll have to ask Alpha [:D]

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 8:01:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho No, just a result of too much time in P&R. [;)] and yes, I was kidding. Hey, I thought there was a reason I was craving margaritas when I start posting on this site after a break...

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 8:02:43 PM)
Hee hee! That is exactly the sort of thing I would like to keep out of general, though, Rho. Or, more precisely, perhaps, limit it to at most one train wreck thread there at a time. It causes some people not to post, and the energy infects some of the others who do post, so things degenerate.

CalifChick -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 8:03:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popularDemand it would appear you've lost that "context" thing during multiple quotasms. pD So are you and the thread owner friends? Partners? Switchy kinksters who like to "bump uglies" (to use a vulgar American term)? Sure seems like you have her back quite firmly. Cali

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875