RE: moderation interpretation?

RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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

Message

VideoAdminRho -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 3:36:57 AM)
Stop now, please. That means both of you.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 4:05:32 AM)
Hannah Lynn, you are objectively a draw. People click on threads because you post on them. This is partly because you are young and female, but it is also because you bring the fight. Also, you are in a loving bdsm relationship. That informs a lot of your posts and keeps the attention of others. Your posting style sucks, but your content is often excellent. However, your style makes it easy for others to disregard you. I can see what you say, but many people cannot, even if they are intelligent and nice. So they respond to something you did not say, which you might have noticed happened a lot on your thread.

DeviantlyD -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 4:31:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Hannah Lynn, you are objectively a draw. People click on threads because you post on them. They do? Not true for me. No offense HannahLyn, it isn't personal. I find there is almost no one here whose name I see that prompts me to think "ooo, I have to see what so-and-so said". However, the reverse is true. If I see a certain poster has started a thread, I know that it's one I can pass on by. ;)

Fetters4U -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 4:37:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather hey, i like the way the mods do their job. but since i'm one of the fuckers red is wanting to muzzle, that should come as no fucking surprise to anyone... WTFG hannah...As always, the f* voice of f* moderation. :) quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather ...i don't see where you have any fucking proof of this flood of newbies fleeing this site in terror, you keep saying it but that doesn't fucking make it so. personally i think its bullshit... Let's talk about newbies. I live right outside of NYC and scan 100 miles, so I am looking at what is possibly the most populated area on earth. I look at every newbie, female, straight-or-bi sub that comes on in my range. I see 10-20 new members a day BUT THEY ARE ALMOST ALL SCAMMERS. There is maybe 1 person a week that MIGHT not be fake. Let's say 1 real person a month. Most of these "newbies" are only active for a day or two tops. That's where the flood comes from: both the new members and the ones leaving are figments of some jerk's imagination. I just checked. There were 12 new local subs yesterday. Only the one with the unusual pussy might be real. What's it like near the other big cities guys and gals? quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather ...now before you say "oh fuck, of course you stayed hannah, you're the sort of poster who's killing this fucking place" keep in mind that heather stayed as well, and she sure doesn't get into the fucking ranting and raving. that's what's so fucking cool about this place. the differences in the people. the same site can keep crazy bitchface hannah happy, and also keep my pollyanna sweetheart heather happy. its a pretty fucking cool site that can do that. if you ask me. The site is way cool, but the vast majority of members never visit the boards. Your comments kill me hannah (in the nicest possible way) but the demise or otherwise of CM is not your fault. Personally, I enjoy your use of colorful metaphors.

ranja -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 4:51:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Someone who says, "this is my favorite site because I can talk to people however I want," is not presenting an argument, unless he is generating traffic of others who specifically look for his posts. The architecture question is: how to maximize participation of people who will produce high quality content. (practical bdsm tips, sensible relationship advice). If that content is easy to find, others will participate and produce more of it. That is what drives site numbers. i think it is important people can talk however they want and i often contribute with posts of quality and humour. and i think it is important to be clear about the moderation that goes on, if a post get pulled then the posters place should stand and the reason for the post that disappeared should be typed in the space that originally held the post with the name of the moderator who made the decision. i think it is fine to respond to a threemontholdthread and that it is unnecessary to tell the lastest contributor they should really start their own thread... and if they do start their own thead, then the same posters tell the op that the subject has been covered too many times to be bothered leaving a reply and they should read the old threads! If threads are considered too old to contribute to, then why are they not being locked? i think when people are put on [awaiting approval] then they should not be even able to post at all if that is the plan, because as long as they are allowed to post and the moderators have to vet these posts, it is just adding to their work load and all these [awaiting approval] marks look kinda sad... i never like it when i see a poster being gagged like that... Also it makes it unclear as to how the punished are supposed to behave, it seems you can not be yourself anymore, you have to talk like the moderators want you to talk otherwise they just keep you on [awaiting approval] forever... that just seems wrong to me. I think to get a good conversation going people need to feel free to express themselves and so often here posters just slam people for their ideas. So many people start a thread... forinstance about wearing a nappy to see numerous posters move in stating it isn't their thing but everybody to their own ... obviously people are free to make a totally boring comment like that, but why bother? i think if any moderation needs to be done, they should get on with pulling all the boring stuff, not the humour or individuality for crying out loud Is it true that Domiguy has been banned? That would be so sad Edit: and i understand the reasoning that this is just the way the site is run and that is the end of it, but i do not agree with that line of thinking. i think that if there are things that are not so good and can be made better, then that should be done, that would make the site better and that surely would be in everybodies interest

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 4:58:25 AM)
well it's took a couple of cups of coffee and break to feed the animals to read through all of this. i certainly hadn't thought a couple of thoughts would spark all this. there have been alot of valid points put forward and i appreciate VAR and mods coming in too. Arpig, i truely believe that just because something is free doesn't mean we can't comment on things if we feel they could be better. i've been on paid sites and there is always someone like you who crops up and says 'if you don't like it then leave'. it's a cop out comment that solves nothing. members are just made to feel that their opinions don't matter. now if what is being put forward doesn't affect you then cool, but who are you to tell others to leave if they don't like the way things are? if people didn't put ideas forwards things would never change and members would leave. the paid site i was a member of is a prime example of that. people paid to be told that if they didn't like the way the site was inconsistantly run with no explanation, where mods shared confidential information with standard members, favoritism was clearly seen and nothing done, mods acted in a fit of temper and personally instead of objectively and so much more. constantly people complained in private to no avail, they also complained within the forum to no avail, only to be told 'if you don't like it leave'. i got a ban for mearly supporting a couple of other members, no explanation as to what i had done wrong. however, they still had the cheek to ask me to renew my 'paid' membership. i in turn asked them to delete my account. so it actually makes no difference to me whether i pay for a site or not. those who provide the site provide a service to its members and that service can be questioned like any other service. just because this is the net doesn't make it any different, being free makes no difference. i'm not saying this site is as bad as the other, i very much prefer it, but my point is is that a hell of alot of the members the other site once had in its forums are nolonger there. people have left because they have no voice where they should have. having a couple of thoughts about why things are like they are, or maybe how they could be different doesn't mean it's a complaint and the person should just leave. overall i think the site is really good, so why should i leave just coz i have a few questions on how it works? why should anyone? if we want freedom of speach as adults within any forum, paid or not, then that also includes the freedom to voice something we feel could do with an explanation or possible change. thanks for the contributions guys. needles

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 5:03:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue webel! i chuckled at the word, only because i used to have webels as a kid. humming to self 'webels wobble but they don't fall down.......' needles

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 5:05:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue webel! i chuckled at the word, only because i used to have webels as a kid. humming to self 'webels wobble but they don't fall down.......' lol no I didn't mean it like that ... think Monty Python ... "I'm surpwised to see you wattled by a wabble of wowdy webels" ;)

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 5:08:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue webel! i chuckled at the word, only because i used to have webels as a kid. humming to self 'webels wobble but they don't fall down.......' lol no I didn't mean it like that ... think Monty Python ... "I'm surpwised to see you wattled by a wabble of wowdy webels" ;) ah i get ya! a twue webel indeed lol edited to say that my spelling of the word weebles isn't correct above, but that was how i first read it, hence the reminder of the toys. weebles were great! needles

DeviantlyD -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 5:18:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins well it's took a couple of cups of coffee and break to feed the animals to read through all of this. i certainly hadn't thought a couple of thoughts would spark all this. there have been alot of valid points put forward and i appreciate VAR and mods coming in too. Arpig, i truely believe that just because something is free doesn't mean we can't comment on things if we feel they could be better. i've been on paid sites and there is always someone like you who crops up and says 'if you don't like it then leave'. it's a cop out comment that solves nothing. members are just made to feel that their opinions don't matter. now if what is being put forward doesn't affect you then cool, but who are you to tell others to leave if they don't like the way things are? if people didn't put ideas forwards things would never change and members would leave. the paid site i was a member of is a prime example of that. people paid to be told that if they didn't like the way the site was inconsistantly run with no explanation, where mods shared confidential information with standard members, favoritism was clearly seen and nothing done, mods acted in a fit of temper and personally instead of objectively and so much more. constantly people complained in private to no avail, they also complained within the forum to no avail, only to be told 'if you don't like it leave'. i got a ban for mearly supporting a couple of other members, no explanation as to what i had done wrong. however, they still had the cheek to ask me to renew my 'paid' membership. i in turn asked them to delete my account. so it actually makes no difference to me whether i pay for a site or not. those who provide the site provide a service to its members and that service can be questioned like any other service. just because this is the net doesn't make it any different, being free makes no difference. i'm not saying this site is as bad as the other, i very much prefer it, but my point is is that a hell of alot of the members the other site once had in its forums are nolonger there. people have left because they have no voice where they should have. having a couple of thoughts about why things are like they are, or maybe how they could be different doesn't mean it's a complaint and the person should just leave. overall i think the site is really good, so why should i leave just coz i have a few questions on how it works? why should anyone? if we want freedom of speach as adults within any forum, paid or not, then that also includes the freedom to voice something we feel could do with an explanation or possible change. thanks for the contributions guys. needles Excellent point.

Aynne88 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 5:41:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Oh God Aynne, just follow her advice and block her. It's really not that difficult. ETA While you're at it, you better block me, I have a dirty word in my sig. Come to think of it JAS has "fuckin" in her sig...better block her as well. Arpig, it isn't the word, pull up any of my posts a trandom. I use the fuck work prolifically and I can't discuss Palin without the cunt word coming out. My point was it was her directing it at me, which violates TOS. I bet you knew that though didn't you? Yep. Ya did. You are playing knight in shining armor to this chick and I can't fucking figure out why, but if it makes you feel better, rock on. Don't pretend though that the word fuck offends me when indeed you know my reason for being pissed at her post. I have people being purposely obtuse. It's fucking irritating. Dirty words have been part of my daily vernacular since 4th grade, nice try though.

needlesandpins -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 5:50:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Oh God Aynne, just follow her advice and block her. It's really not that difficult. ETA While you're at it, you better block me, I have a dirty word in my sig. Come to think of it JAS has "fuckin" in her sig...better block her as well. Arpig, it isn't the word, pull up any of my posts a trandom. I use the fuck work prolifically and I can't discuss Palin without the cunt word coming out. My point was it was her directing it at me, which violates TOS. I bet you knew that though didn't you? Yep. Ya did. You are playing knight in shining armor to this chick and I can't fucking figure out why, but if it makes you feel better, rock on. Don't pretend though that the word fuck offends me when indeed you know my reason for being pissed at her post. I have people being purposely obtuse. It's fucking irritating. Dirty words have been part of my daily vernacular since 4th grade, nice try though. Aynne, i see your point entirely. context is everything. some posts are just light banter between people, each giving as good as the other. however, some things are just plainly abusive and often get that way because the other person insists in taking what the other has said out of context just to cause an argument. in those cases moderation is cool, but where it's just banter then it can actually be fun. needles

Aynne88 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 5:55:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not think that was okay, Aynne... Thanks Julia. It certainly is one weak assed way of trying to shut down an oppossing opinion. Not very effective and for someone like me, all it did was make me believe even more that the poster has some deeper issues than we saw in that thread. I think that the "shut the fuck up and block me" when posted by the OP no less on an obviously contentious thread shows little more than an inability to defend your point, and it just makes no sense. Moderation issues aside, in real life I can guarantee that will not get you far. I appreciate your comment. [:)].

JstAnotherSub -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 5:57:35 AM)
Aynne, your new pic is fucking adorable!

Aynne88 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 6:03:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Oh God Aynne, just follow her advice and block her. It's really not that difficult. ETA While you're at it, you better block me, I have a dirty word in my sig. Come to think of it JAS has "fuckin" in her sig...better block her as well. Arpig, it isn't the word, pull up any of my posts a trandom. I use the fuck work prolifically and I can't discuss Palin without the cunt word coming out. My point was it was her directing it at me, which violates TOS. I bet you knew that though didn't you? Yep. Ya did. You are playing knight in shining armor to this chick and I can't fucking figure out why, but if it makes you feel better, rock on. Don't pretend though that the word fuck offends me when indeed you know my reason for being pissed at her post. I have people being purposely obtuse. It's fucking irritating. Dirty words have been part of my daily vernacular since 4th grade, nice try though. Aynne, i see your point entirely. context is everything. some posts are just light banter between people, each giving as good as the other. however, some things are just plainly abusive and often get that way because the other person insists in taking what the other has said out of context just to cause an argument. in those cases moderation is cool, but where it's just banter then it can actually be fun. needles Absolutely 100% right on. Thanks for verbalizing better than I could have or did. I mean look at Icarys, we go at it all the time, I love the guy, but it's a mutual friendship. Domi too, and I know he ruffles feathers. But the thread yesterday in my opinion was allowed to go on far too long with the OP and her attacks. It has nothing to do with "dirty words" but again, Arpig knew that. I am glad however that eventually the mods did shut it down, finally. Yes there job sucks, is often thankless and certainly being a volunteer position I don't want it, and I admire those that have the patience to do it, I really do, but it irks me when people say "well then ask for your money back" or "go to fet then". Ummm no? I like it here, I have been here for 4 years, and made a lot of real life friends. Speaking out should NOT be discouraged for fear of punishment, and petulant children should not be allowed to run rampant telling others to shut the fuck up. There is a need and a time for moderation in those instances.

sunshinemiss -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 6:14:11 AM)
I miss all the good stuff when I'm sleeping. For the record: That sucks.

BonesFromAsh -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 6:33:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 If a question in ask a master were answered by john warren types (in addition to whomever else), a lot more people would be here. An atmosphere that encourages people with standing to participate will attract others. Instead, the current atmosphere does not attract such people. I wanted to jump in here and take a moment to comment on the above quote. When I joined CM back in '08 (under a different screen name) it was because people like John Warren were posting advice, ideas and topics that addressed actual bdsm-d/s-m/s issues...thought-provoking posts. Now, when I want to read that sort of thing, I admit I do head over to Fet. CM, while still a very cool site, and CollarChat, while still a fair amount of fun, is just that...fun. While I don't expect everyone to agree and get along with each other, I also don't care for the stroke-fest/bitch-fest that many threads turn into here. Not to say this doesn't happen elsewhere, but it does seem to be the norm here. In my opinion, of course. As for the moderation on CM, I agree that personal attacks have been allowed to slide just like attacks on various kinks. I admit I have my moments of falling into this type of attack mode...and I'm not at all proud of it. I guess I'm learning to moderate myself. Just my 2 cents...take it for what its worth to ya.

Aynne88 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 6:52:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminAlpha quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I actually think that the mods have swung too far to the kinder, gentler side of things. And should be bitch slapping people more often and faster instead of giving them innumerable chances which are undeserved. Yep. I didn't dig today being called a bitch and told to "shut the fuck and block me then bitch". Yeah. Not cool. I mean if that is ok, then yay, I will take that as me being allowed to use the same language and not fear moderation. Cool. I'm not going to make a habit of doing this, but that post was reported and removed on 06/18/2011 at 9:07 am by Mod21. We agree with you. Thank you, I didn't realize that, since I didn't report it and I didn't go back and reread that train wreck. I do appreciate it though, again, thanks.

Aynne88 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 6:58:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub Aynne, your new pic is fucking adorable! You are fucking adorable!!! smooches

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 7:39:39 AM)
Thank you, BonesFromAsh, I agree with you completely.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875