RE: I asked a question

RE: I asked a question (Full Version)

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

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 9:39:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I'm still trying to find out where it says you cant start a new thread on an old subject in the TOS. Who says you cannot start a new thread on an old topic? Unless you're trying to restart a thread that was closed, which we don't allow... otherwise, what would be the point in closing it at all? A thread was killed after a good start because of passive agressive whining and name calling when the tenor started to go against someone. Around that time, said person went on errrrrrr Mod-Assisted Vacation ( just made that term up and I like it) I started a thread with a similar name and basically the same topic and folks right, left and middle were being amazingly respectful. (I know, you dont believe me but it CAN happen in PnR) I went to a ball game, came back and POOF, GONE and a gold letter in its place telling me that such things were verboten. I read the links supplied in the letter and couldn't find anywhere that it says you cant do that. I blew the dust off the ancient scrolls and graven tablets left by Mods 1 and 2 at the top of the page. nuthin :-( A letter to the head Domme has been unopened since the 22nd. As near as I can figure, it's something that is passed as Gospel in Mod training and is a part of their super SEEKRIT hellish initation rites which can apparently only be performed in a month with a blue moon accompanied by the sacrifice of a unicorn (OK, maybe the unicorn thing is too far) but noone bothered to write it down for us poor proles.

ModTwentyOne -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 9:56:52 AM)
Did you check the net etiquette links in the guidelines? I think there is information there that says it is bad forum etiquette to restart a closed thread. You can always plead your case BEFORE you restart a closed thread and see if it's do-able.

GreedyTop -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:02:27 AM)
I thought it was SOP that a thread more than 3 months old should be linked to in a NEW thread? That's what I have been advising newbies, anyway....

needlesandpins -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:02:58 AM)
well Termy made my eyebrows raise. i have no idea about the thread, but the way this one has been put over seems a tad ott. needles

Hillwilliam -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:05:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne Did you check the net etiquette links in the guidelines? I think there is information there that says it is bad forum etiquette to restart a closed thread. You can always plead your case BEFORE you restart a closed thread and see if it's do-able. the guidelines here? "Etiquette Please remain respectful of other points of view and ask questions that are pertinent. Please refrain from posting inflammatory or accusatory remarks about individual users, specific groups of people, or types of fetishes. Each of us is unique and sweeping generalizations will only result in a very negative thread. We are here to have intelligent discussions regarding a variety of interests. Please try to word your question in a way that shows you are interested in promoting discussion instead of trolling for attention. Often, your questions can be answered by doing a search of the archives. Please check the date of a thread and avoid commenting on anything more than 6 months old. If you would like to start a discussion based on a thread more than 6 months old, create a new post and include a link to the old thread. Posts telling people the “right” or “true” way to do things are unwelcome. If you are very knowledgeable about a certain topic, we welcome you to share your experiences, just keep your mind open to other possibilities. Below are a few links to sites describing general ‘netiquette’ (internet etiquette). Please review them and apply the techniques to your posts. The Core Rules of Netiquette 25 Forum Posting Etiquette Tips What is Forum Etiquette? Tips for Good Web Forum Etiquette " I even looked thru all 4 of the offsite links and didn't see restarting a zapped discussion mentioned. Seriously, even if it had been mentioned in one of those off site links, would that be grounds for "Please be advised that this is a FINAL WARNING. Any post that is not within the Guidelines found below, will be removed and moderation considered."

ModTwentyOne -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:07:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop I thought it was SOP that a thread more than 3 months old should be linked to in a NEW thread? That's what I have been advising newbies, anyway.... This one is not about an old thread, it's about one being closed and then someone starting a new one to continue the topic.

Hillwilliam -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:07:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop I thought it was SOP that a thread more than 3 months old should be linked to in a NEW thread? That's what I have been advising newbies, anyway.... Not talking about an old thread greeds. Talking about one that got killed by whining passive-agressive attacks from one of the errr participants that got restarted within a few hours of the person in question being sent on a Mod-Assisted Vacation.

GreedyTop -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:09:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop I thought it was SOP that a thread more than 3 months old should be linked to in a NEW thread? That's what I have been advising newbies, anyway.... This one is not about an old thread, it's about one being closed and then someone starting a new one to continue the topic. ok, so what I got a letter for not too long ago. Sorry. Flu-ish and obviously not reading as well as I sometimes do....

Hillwilliam -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:09:39 AM)
21. Maybe y'all just need to pass the rule and publicise it. Then, there won't be a problem. As it is, it's kinda like a cop running radar in a town with no speed limit signs because well, the whole PD, Judge and Mayor know how fast you're supposed to drive on this road. [8D]

ModTwentyOne -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:09:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I even looked thru all 4 of the offsite links and didn't see restarting a zapped discussion mentioned. Can you tell me why, when you see a thread that a moderator has determined should be closed for whatever reason, you would think it was a good idea to basically override that decision and restart the discussion?

Hillwilliam -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:11:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I even looked thru all 4 of the offsite links and didn't see restarting a zapped discussion mentioned. Can you tell me why, when you see a thread that a moderator has determined should be closed for whatever reason, you would think it was a good idea to basically override that decision and restart the discussion? Because the person who made the thread untenable was gone. ETA, the restarted thread at least began (I dont know what the last couple hours were like) with everyone being respectable, finding common ground and at worst shaking hands and agreeing to disagree. ETA. If threads are constantly killed because one person sees an argument going badly and they know that all they have to do is begin a bunch of passive agressive attacks and name calling on the other posters to get the thread deleted, isn't that allowing ONE person to dictate how we do business here?

ModTwentyOne -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:20:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne Can you tell me why, when you see a thread that a moderator has determined should be closed for whatever reason, you would think it was a good idea to basically override that decision and restart the discussion? Because the person who made the thread untenable was gone. If this was a thread in P&R, the updated rules on a sticky in P&R state "If there is a succession of violating posts by multiple users, the thread will be locked and THEN the TOS violating posts will be removed in an effort to help those posting in that manner to be immediately aware of the problem. The thread will NOT be unlocked however, after the offending posts are removed." Those rules were made specifically for P&R due to the long history of problems in that forum. That forum takes more attention from staff than all the other forums combined (in my estimation). I will ask Alpha to consider adding a sentence to that guideline to clarify the issue.

Hillwilliam -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:27:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne Can you tell me why, when you see a thread that a moderator has determined should be closed for whatever reason, you would think it was a good idea to basically override that decision and restart the discussion? Because the person who made the thread untenable was gone. If this was a thread in P&R, the updated rules on a sticky in P&R state "If there is a succession of violating posts by multiple users, the thread will be locked and THEN the TOS violating posts will be removed in an effort to help those posting in that manner to be immediately aware of the problem. The thread will NOT be unlocked however, after the offending posts are removed." Those rules were made specifically for P&R due to the long history of problems in that forum. That forum takes more attention from staff than all the other forums combined (in my estimation). I will ask Alpha to consider adding a sentence to that guideline to clarify the issue. I feel that adding that sentence will help a lot since we'll have more clearly written rules instead of unwritten rules. Kinda like playing "Calvinball." It's like way back in Dom 101. "Punishing someone for breaking a rule they had no way of knowing about is counterproductive." I also like your idea of leaving the thread up and locked instead of just deleting it altogether. Some of us have to leave and work, run errands, go fishing, sleep, get laid and stuff like that and it's frustrating that when you were interested in a thread, you come back to read what is there and POOF, gone forever. PS, if you want to use the term "Mod-Assisted Vacation" in your own writings, consider this written permission.

Hillwilliam -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:37:39 AM)
This, ladies and gentlemen, concludes lesson 1 on: "How to have a civilized discussion with a Mod and try to work together and make CM a better place."[:)]

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 10:50:00 AM)
Although it's not my intention to get on the bad side of the moderators, I believe they do a thankless job, it's my most strong opinion the Big White Cock has a Big Sharp Point.

Winterapple -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 11:38:06 AM)
I think so to. Closing a thread because of the behavior of one asshole seems very unfair. It's not like when a thread turns into a clusterfuck with pretty much everyone losing it and hurling personal insults around and saying dodgy TOS violating stuff. Just seems a little harsh that the whole class has to stay in for recess because one person acted up. And if their goal was to disrupt and derail a thread it seems like they are being rewarded for it. If it's deemed the thread should be closed because of the actions of one person delete their post but at least keep the thread up for others to read and maybe get something out of. And, seriously isn't there suppose to be a blue moon tonight?

Hillwilliam -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 12:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple And, seriously isn't there suppose to be a blue moon tonight? You're very observant and we haz a BRAND NOOB Mod this month too.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 12:21:58 PM)
quote: Just seems a little harsh that the whole class has to stay in for recess because one person acted up. And if their goal was to disrupt and derail a thread it seems like they are being rewarded for it. A dom (leadership) basic, don't punish everyone b/c one baddie acted out, and never EVER reward bad behavior. It works well for parents, too.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 12:38:32 PM)
Topics are not usually closed because of the behavior of a single person. At least not that I have seen. In P&R there is a 3 strike rule, where it requires 3 personal attacks by 3 different posters to get a topic closed. The other is when there have been multiple warnings for other things, and posted warnings in the topic and they are ignored by the posters (plural). The last I have seen is when someone creates a sock account just to cause problems and they start topics with that in mind. The socks (alt accounts for the purpose to cause problems) are usually looking for disruption and attention, so those topics are often pulled. Hope this assists in clearing things up and this is just repeated information that Alpha has posted in other topics. Thank you for being a part of CollarMe, VideoAdminGamma quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple I think so to. Closing a thread because of the behavior of one asshole seems very unfair. It's not like when a thread turns into a clusterfuck with pretty much everyone losing it and hurling personal insults around and saying dodgy TOS violating stuff. Just seems a little harsh that the whole class has to stay in for recess because one person acted up. And if their goal was to disrupt and derail a thread it seems like they are being rewarded for it. If it's deemed the thread should be closed because of the actions of one person delete their post but at least keep the thread up for others to read and maybe get something out of. And, seriously isn't there suppose to be a blue moon tonight?

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: I asked a question (8/31/2012 12:42:02 PM)
I would like to take this opportunity to point out something else. Often users will make assumptions on what has happened, without an official explanation. An explanation cannot often be given due to privacy issues. This user explanation/assumption is then repeated enough so that it appears to have validity when it does not. When in doubt you can always contact one of us and we will explain as best as possible within policy, or direct you to VideoAdminAlpha. Thanks for being a part of CollarMe, VideoAdminGamma quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt quote: Just seems a little harsh that the whole class has to stay in for recess because one person acted up. And if their goal was to disrupt and derail a thread it seems like they are being rewarded for it. A dom (leadership) basic, don't punish everyone b/c one baddie acted out, and never EVER reward bad behavior. It works well for parents, too.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875