RE: moderation interpretation?

RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

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

Message

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 7:49:38 AM)
Also, Fetters4u, if you are interested in making a scientific count of changing rate of newbie retention on the boards, you could count the average number of total posts made by someone who started an introduction thread in the first three months of 2008, and compare it to the same statistic in the first three months of 2011. The difference is clear. The only thing up for discussion us the reason for that difference.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 7:59:22 AM)
quote: 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. Since my demographic is men, they are all "real" as far as I can tell, meaning they exist in the objective universe and are not only an internet fabrication. Women have been rare on this site since day one.

ranja -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:19:07 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. You see the problem i have is that i think that lost of people respond to a specific person about their specific circumstances or opinions and i think that is good otherwise everybody would reply with ~FR~ and talk to thin air about hypothetical issues, how clinical. If an argument becomes a simple name calling contest it might be considered useless (though it still can be funny), but if the argument is about a subject (of topic or not) i do not see why the exchange would not be allowed... and indeed i think that when somebody starts with the fucking bitching language, then the response in that tone should be allowed also. To accuse people of being purposely obtuse is as far as i am considered rather a personal attack, ain't that against the TOS?

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:23:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BonesFromAsh 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. I do not believe I have ever read a thread about a topic that you generated. I used to generate questions all of the time. I ran out of them. Therein lies the rub, if you are not generating content as a user, can you blame anybody but yourself that there is no content? There are very few real lifestyle threads started in the general discussion area. There are plenty of experts (and i am not counting myself in their ranks) reading the site, but they are not posting. Why aren't they posting? I think many are tired of posting, how many different conversations on this stuff can one have? Sometimes a new slant is posted, and people contribute, but often it is the same debates over and over and over again. There aren't a lot of "experts" out there, so how do we keep those who are interested in this site? How do we attract a smaller and smaller pool of experts to post here? Pay them? What? Every site has a period in which it is fresh and new, and then something newer and shinier comes up, and people try it out. I remember LuckyAlbatross posting on this subject, and how sooner or later CM would wane in popularity because of its age and no other reason. I come here still for the politics and religion section mostly. I like to read the general discussion, but right now much of it applies because I am not currently in a relationship, and as a result I can't post much about what I am experiencing right now..... And that brings me to another point. This site has different areas. Many of the trainwrecks referenced on this thread did not take place in the lifestyle forums, where newbies come for help... they happened in the basement in Random Snippets. I am not saying that newbies do not find their way there, they do, but it is not like we are losing "experts" because of threads generated in this sections

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:26:00 AM)
Or the politics and religioun............which gets downright ridiculous as far as name calling and personal attacks. But it doesn't bother me. It's a hoot actually.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:27:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Also, Fetters4u, if you are interested in making a scientific count of changing rate of newbie retention on the boards, you could count the average number of total posts made by someone who started an introduction thread in the first three months of 2008, and compare it to the same statistic in the first three months of 2011. The difference is clear. The only thing up for discussion us the reason for that difference. Well, what have been the major changes here since that date? Is that what you are getting at?

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:30:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Or the politics and religioun............which gets downright ridiculous as far as name calling and personal attacks. But it doesn't bother me. It's a hoot actually. And it is best to keep the toxins contained there[:D] I am glad we have that section, and I am doubtful that any lifestyler would quit posting here because of it. It is the one section where I see John Warren reading regularly for those who might find that info interesting...(he may read other sections, but I spend most of my time on CM there, so I see him reading)

windchymes -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:42:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Or the politics and religioun............which gets downright ridiculous as far as name calling and personal attacks. But it doesn't bother me. It's a hoot actually. I'm pretty sure they actually like it that way [:)] Discussing politics isn't for the faint of heart, lol.

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:47:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not believe I have ever read a thread about a topic that you generated. I used to generate questions all of the time. I ran out of them. Therein lies the rub, if you are not generating content as a user, can you blame anybody but yourself that there is no content? I don't think there's any correlation between number of threads started and quality of content or contribution. I can't ever recall seeing LadyPact start one, for example, and yet her contributions to other people's threads are something I never miss if I happen to be reading said thread.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:50:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Also, Fetters4u, if you are interested in making a scientific count of changing rate of newbie retention on the boards, you could count the average number of total posts made by someone who started an introduction thread in the first three months of 2008, and compare it to the same statistic in the first three months of 2011. The difference is clear. The only thing up for discussion us the reason for that difference. Well, what have been the major changes here since that date? Is that what you are getting at? the existence of Fet and the caprice of moderation in 2009 led to an exodus, because thee was a problem here and there was somewhere to go. for the only time so far in site history, there was motion from Fet to cm in the first six months of 2010, because of Alpha's reaffirmation of site rules on the message board. there was a lot of hijacking during that time period, but a lower rate of personal attack. or, more precisely, it was more confined to P and R. daily users logged in is now about double what it was in Jan 2010, but a fraction of what it was the day before Fet opened for business. and the number of users logged in does not create content. thread creation and participation creates content. as you noted yourself, there are few thread creators, and as LadyPact noted some of them are people who are not improving the site so another way to view the question: what is the best method to increase quality new thread content in Community Discussions? .

GreedyTop -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:52:30 AM)
my threads are usually fluff, I admit. LadyP is one whose threads I invariably read, even if I dont respond. One persons 'content' is anothers fluff.. and despite whatever, sometimes they DO mix. (sorry if that didnt make sense.. my pillows are screeching my nasme)

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:55:59 AM)
Yes, I always have 'hmmmm' or 'ah haaaa' moments when I read LadyP's threads. Then again, many other's similarly.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 8:56:13 AM)
RapierFugue, it isn't that the pope of rope needs to be the op. Someone with a sincere question wanting an honest answer is enough. Most people on the site will try to be helpful. Even you. maybe.[;)] The issue then is how to build a welcoming atmosphere for someone starting a thread, if that person is nervous, or unsure, ie isn't a troll or a pompous ass.

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:00:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop my threads are usually fluff, I admit. LadyP is one whose threads I invariably read, even if I dont respond. One persons 'content' is anothers fluff.. and despite whatever, sometimes they DO mix. I don't disagree. But to say someone has to start loads of threads to be a useful contributor isn't, IMHO at least, correct.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:06:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not believe I have ever read a thread about a topic that you generated. I used to generate questions all of the time. I ran out of them. Therein lies the rub, if you are not generating content as a user, can you blame anybody but yourself that there is no content? I don't think there's any correlation between number of threads started and quality of content or contribution. I can't ever recall seeing LadyPact start one, for example, and yet her contributions to other people's threads are something I never miss if I happen to be reading said thread. The general discussion area is a shell of its former prestige on this site. You have been around long enough to see it wane. LadyPact has started threads, btw, and she has lamented on these boards how few people contribute to them, at least she posted stuff. I am not the one complaining about the general discussion area, and I am convinced those who have a vested interest should post discussion ideas... post it and discuss it, and people will come. RedMagic has posted threads.... unfortunately I am not a lesbian in any war so I have very little to contribute to that thread.

GreedyTop -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:07:26 AM)
I agree. Once in a while there is a newbie to the boards that posts and awesome thread, RF.. usually, that is a 'newbie' that has lurked a while and gotten a feel for how these forums tend to function. (again.. not sure I am making sense.. damned phone call from work has kept me up// WHY would they call and put me on hold?? DAMMIT!!!!)

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:12:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop my threads are usually fluff, I admit. LadyP is one whose threads I invariably read, even if I dont respond. One persons 'content' is anothers fluff.. and despite whatever, sometimes they DO mix. (sorry if that didnt make sense.. my pillows are screeching my nasme) I read her threads too, but unfortunately I cannot identify with many of them because her life and my life are worlds apart. I get a lot out of her threads and I love learning through her, but I have nothing to add because my experiences are so disparate and I do not play in public. Basically, I still come here because I love you guys, even though I am not currently mentally geared towards BDSM. I am happy to share human insight and gain it from all of you, but I know my limitations, also.... I do not know if that makes sense, I do not want to talk out my ass knowingly, I do enough of that without knowing[:D]

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:15:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 RapierFugue, it isn't that the pope of rope needs to be the op. Someone with a sincere question wanting an honest answer is enough. Most people on the site will try to be helpful. Even you. maybe.[;)] The issue then is how to build a welcoming atmosphere for someone starting a thread, if that person is nervous, or unsure, ie isn't a troll or a pompous ass. Sometimes it is hard because a well meaning person will post something like "I think all dominants who like to humiliate their submissives suck and are abusive".... how are we supposed to respond to that without making the person feel somewhat ganged up on, and at the same time make sure others reading understand that they may not understand a kink, but it doesn't make that kink wrong

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:18:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop my threads are usually fluff, I admit. LadyP is one whose threads I invariably read, even if I dont respond. One persons 'content' is anothers fluff.. and despite whatever, sometimes they DO mix. I don't disagree. But to say someone has to start loads of threads to be a useful contributor isn't, IMHO at least, correct. That was not my point. My point is that if a person is going to complain about the lack of content they can always do something, like contribute their own. If everyone just read, there would be nothing new to read.. Kinda like being part of the solution ..... I never meant to infer that we "have" to contribute content. I don't write new threads anymore (at least not in GD)

ranja -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:25:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There aren't a lot of "experts" out there, so how do we keep those who are interested in this site? How do we attract a smaller and smaller pool of experts to post here? Pay them? What? Every site has a period in which it is fresh and new, and then something newer and shinier comes up, and people try it out. I remember LuckyAlbatross posting on this subject, and how sooner or later CM would wane in popularity because of its age and no other reason. i don't think you need experts at all, you just need different people to feel free to post. what am i.. an expert on how to keep a long term relationship interesting and fresh? is that important enough to be valued on this site? This site is new and fresh to any new user just coming in... or any old user coming back, and if people get bored about the same subjects being covered they might find another hobby for a while, maybe take up fishing or dealing shares and go to sites and boards about that. The main thing to keep people interested is fun, if you knock the fun out of the site by heavily moderating and interfering in exiting exchanges, then interesting and fun people will always leave and ultimately that will make the site boring and stale. It has occured to me recently that British and American humour is very different... in that British humour is funny

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625