RE: The decline of collarme

RE: The decline of collarme (Full Version)

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

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/4/2013 8:35:37 PM)
Alright, I have received cmails from VAA, a couple were disciplinary and one resulted in my being moderated for a short period. VAA also sent me a message concerning a post I made concerning the death of Bin Laden. I suggested that D. Trump would demand a long form death certificate, witness statements under the use of truth drugs, and DNA tests to prove it was bin Laden. I handled that one poorly since I sent a reply stating that I was wondering what I had done wrong to deserve a mod message, the reply was that VAA would not contact me again except on site business. I have seen mods post in threads to relay information from one member to their friends concerning a family crisis or death. I have seen mods post in threads to give their opinion about what was said. Personally, I could care less if mods posted comments or contributed to a thread with their mod account or their personal account. Why this seems to be an issue to some I have no clue, as it makes no sense to me, but then I am a former Army Ranger and we are not known for high IQ's since we routinely follow orders that put us behind enemy lines, in situations where we are heavily outnumbered and help is not going to be immediate. Therefore, I support a mods right to reply or post an opinion on any topic using whatever account they may be logged in with at the time. And no, I am not receiving any form of payment for taking this stand, although if any of the mods happen to have the winning numbers for the mega millions drawing on Tuesday I would appreciate them sending me a message with that information.

heartcream -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/4/2013 11:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida If YOU started a thread as heartcream has challenged, I don't think you'll get the same negative reaction, because people know you and like you here. If a newbie started the same thread, we'd see a different response... That was sort of my point. I think it's up to the more seasoned posters to start those threads. And I am still going to start one. Pam I am going to disagree, for me I read the words written and they either move me or they dont.

metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 12:53:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins ...the point is that if in a thread someone posts something that shows them to be acting like a hypocrite then we should have the right to say so. it's no a personal attack it's a statement of truth. ...the facts as they stand show you to be behaving like a hypocrite. Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? One would be a TOS violation, and the other not. Right? It's unfair to blame your unwillingness to do so on the mods. Pam

jlf1961 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 1:00:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins ...the point is that if in a thread someone posts something that shows them to be acting like a hypocrite then we should have the right to say so. it's no a personal attack it's a statement of truth. ...the facts as they stand show you to be behaving like a hypocrite. Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? One would be a TOS violation, and the other not. Right? Pam Because it is due to human nature to react with aggression. It is genetic and was proven when Og thumped Grog on the head with the first club so he could bone Grog's woman. For the last 50,000 years humans have been acting with aggression and attacking those that are considered a threat or a bother. A good modern military example is calling in a heavy airstrike to deal with a single enemy sniper. I think the correct term is Overkill.

metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 1:04:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? ...it is due to human nature... No. It is NOT human nature. It is human choice. Pam

jlf1961 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 1:13:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? ...it is due to human nature... No. It is NOT human nature. It is human choice. Pam If it is human choice then it sure seems the primary choice to use. You must understand, after my time in the military and years spent traveling around the world and seeing what people do to each other with little regard to feelings or wellbeing, I have a very low opinion of the human race.

metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 1:21:09 AM)
What does that have to do with this thread? Pam

jlf1961 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 1:32:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis What does that have to do with this thread? Pam The 'choice' to react with a directed insult seems to be the common form of response in the various forums as well as in real life. While there are diplomatic ways to say basically the same thing without directing it at a specific person, that tactic is rarely used. It is therefore my opinion, that to go on the attack, here, in real life either verbally or physically is a direct result of instinct. Seldom do I see someone using the ignore feature in the forums, and those that have used that feature are readily noticeable for their not responding to clear posts that are intended to get just that reaction. I believe it is human nature to try and show some form of superiority over individuals that either disagree with you or irritate you in some way. And judging from the number of threads locked for mod review lately, it is becoming a common behavior.

metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 1:52:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I believe it is human nature to try and show some form of superiority over individuals that either disagree with you or irritate you in some way. You are disagreeing with me. You are irritating me. And yet I'm not compelled to call you names or make generalizations about you as a person. Instead, I'm going to say: when you say such things, you paint yourself as a victim and betray your own feelings of superiority. Ergo: breaking TOS is a choice, not an inevitable consequence of human nature. Pam

metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 2:09:33 AM)
If there were allegations of favoritism, I would be concerned. But the main complaint seems to be: I don't like TOS and I resent having to follow it. That's your problem. Pam

Aedonix -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 3:08:35 AM)
Posting new and interesting topics for one sounds like a great idea, but to truly see if past reputation is a factor wuld you not have to write TWO threads. one posted under your regular nick and a second, written my you also, but posted under a newbie nick? Both woudl of course be of the same standard, and hopefully stimulate discussion, but if the theory offered holds tru. the newbie nick post would be met with a less enthusiastic (being nice there) response from the boards as a whole. Of course, the big problem here is sock accounts which one would be required to make the newbie post, but i would certainly be interested to see the results and if there actually IS a difference.

needlesandpins -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 3:14:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins again, it is not a personal attack to tell someone they are being a hypocrite when they are IT IS A STATEMENT OF TRUTH. there is a difference. I am pointing out again, that it is not your or my judgement to say whether something is a personal attack or not. If the issue is with the judgement of management, then say so. quote: you speak for yourself. i am talking to a person in here.......or i am talking to a person in real life, if they act a certain way i would tell them in real life. so if they act that way in here we should be able to say so. we are not in a fricking cafe, we are in a forum where the rest of the users can butt out and find something more fluffy for their sensitive souls if they don't like a particular thread, or discussion therein. what you are saying is that there should be no debating, or telling it how it is on tv either because if there was in real life we'd get the police/management involved. I always speak for myself. You seem to think you are entitled to something in a private forum, just like a private establishment. You are bestowed privileges by those that run the place. I never once said to make things fluffy, try some of your own advice about hypocrisy and read what I wrote. Personally I think most people are over sensitive, but I am not management here and not going to try and circumvent their judgement. When you say I am saying something, you are trying to speak for me, that hypocrisy thing again where you started your reply to me about speaking for myself. You are basically arguing to argue, and not attempting to communicate or have intellectual discourse about the subject. quote: actually the only sites i see this is where mod's carry on as they do in here. all the other sites i use that are not kink related manage very well indeed without the nannies listening, and pandering to others that arn't even taking part in the thread. Then we have had different experiences. I also do not see the mod squad acting as nannies. quote: maybe Mary Whitehouse was right then and we should all have someone to think for us and protect us from anything that may upset one person, when in actual fact no-one else cares. oh but then hang on, again, you can always click out just like you can change the channel on your tv instead of whinging about it. I have not said we need someone to think for us. You are making absurd statements that are not based on anything I have said, and is purely driven by an agenda. I can see where this type of posting may lead to issues in an intellectual discourse. quote: firstly, read what a person actually says, then take it as that is what they mean. don't put your own judgement on it so that you get it wrong. secondly, from what others have said, and what i have done myself, talking to the ones whom make the decissions doesn't actually work. they pass the book for their actions onto someone else. Read what a person actually says? Should I use your reply as an example of that? Don't put my judgement on it so that I get it wrong? You mean have you think for me? You mean like Mary Whitehouse said? You mean it is your opinion it does not work because they disagree with your judgement? What were you saying about hypocrisy again? Maybe the conflict is with demanded behavior of others, matching what we portray? Maybe that carries over to how the management is being treated as well? Since I am not involved in the private issues that are happening, I will not assume anything, but it does appear like there may be a lot of assumption going on when I compare what Alpha and the other mod squad post, and what a few dissenting posters do. What is going on, I have seen before, in other places. I am sure no matter what happens there will be some "righteous" posters that stand for truth, justice and the american way against the villainous Mod Squad with their gold letters of doom. ;) Have fun will all that. i was going to the trouble of responding to all this again, but i can't be bothered. seriously dude, you are calling me a hypocrite? i suggest you read some of your own words up there. i'm entitled to my opinion, i'm entitled to say it, whether in private or in this PUBLIC forum. if you don't agree cool. it doesn't change the fact that i think people should butt out of other people's discussions just because they don't like it. either bring your opinion into the discussion or move on. i don't need someone to think on my behalf, either I think something is a personal attack...in which case I will report it myself....or I don't. if something is a statement of truth based on someone else's admission/behaviour then it is not a personal attack. it's that simple. needles

TAFKAA -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 3:17:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis If there were allegations of favoritism, I would be concerned. But the main complaint seems to be: I don't like TOS and I resent having to follow it. Well of course there's fucking favouritism, how the hell do you think the fragile flowers who spam the fucking report button get their jollies? I certainly got more gold letters than the whiny bitches who debated with me and lost ever did. That was because they reported me for personal attacks all the time and I refused to do the same because it was beneath me. I deal with a personal attack by removing their fucking head, not whining to mommy. The moderators' reponse? "Oh we didn't see their personal attack, only yours - you should report them when that happens." - Ye Gods, it was in the same thread... in fact I fucking quoted it, you dolt. Disingenuous bullshit like that was the order of the day. And people wonder why this place is in decline. It's in decline for several reasons: 1) Firstly because there's a complete failure to understand the deep psychology of human beings. To whit: What is the one essential component of all plays, novels and movies? The foundation of all dramatic art? Conflict. The moderation here has turned the place into a pseudo-civil milquetoast community which penalises the free expression of ideas and opinions. Conflict is abhorred - although the reasons are not made clear - and a rather narrow set of definitions regarding unwelcome behaviour are put in place - something a group of regulars know and exploit on a consistent basis. This place is dying because you can't say boo to a goose without some overzealous fucktard with a moderator's badge censoring you for it. Why the fuck would people want to hang around a place where passionate debate is impossible? Unless you think kink people are cold, unfeeling machines who practice kink purely as an outlet for their need for artistic expression. You can't legislate good behaviour. Or civility. And what on earth makes anyone think that in a place like this you should even try? The only upside I can see is that by doing so you make it more warm and fuzzy for all those timid male subs so the FinDommes can more easily ply their trade. Funnily enough, I think old AmandaRanja may have been onto something. 2) The jaded old "masters of kink" Regulars are given free reign to stomp all over any discussion which fails to meet with their personal approval. Self-appointed arbiters of discussion tell people to "search for it" - thinking that because THEY happen to have discussed a particular question to death that nobody else has the right to discuss it. The possibility of just not reading the fucking thread is apparently to complex for them to process. Here's an idea: Why not let the self-appointed jaded "masters of kink" sit in their own forum where they can grumble all day about these newbies who know nothing. That way they can avoid the discussion threads which repeat things they've already discussed and settled on and newbies can avoid their jaded, unwelcoming asses. 3) Subsumed aggression Of course, all the overzealous censure doesn't really eliminate the aggressive behaviour between members, it just causes it to fester and people express this as 'snark'. Every time you see the word 'snark' replace it with 'being a cunt and getting away with it' - because that's all it really is. Snark is basically personal attacks which operate with moderator sanction. The classic example is using a generalisation which clearly applies to your opponent in a debate. For example: "I find that all male Doms who disbelieve in the inherent superiority of women tend to have lower IQ's than the norm." Using a generalisation doesn't stop it from being a personal attack, you fuckwit. You're posting it in response to your opponent, so of course it's referencing them. Otherwise - under the current regime - you'd be censured for thread drift. (Since posting generalisations about groups of people is hardly relevant to the thread topic.) Essentially you're trying to claim a plausible deniability to which you're not entitled. And the moderators are letting you get away with it. A stance which is wildly inconsistent with the theme of "no personal attacks". Instead it's "no personal attacks unless it's worded trickily enough that we can look the other way" with a nod and a wink to the regulars. 4) P&R as justification P&R was always going to be a basket case. Throw in "abortion" and you'd have had the trio of topics you never discuss at the dinner table. Using P&R as justification for increased moderation is like using injuries in the boxing ring as justification for a crackdown on harsh language. If you don't want 'em to get injured, don't build the fucking ring and toss them into it. Nannying the other forums because the forum with the greatest tribal alliances wasn't a model of civil discourse is just plain fucking stupid. In summary, this place is dead because there's no life in it. The essentials of life: fire; passion; growth; are all absent while people behave like cardboard similes of real human beings. And I'm afraid not wanting to scare away the pay piggies is the only motivation which explains this nonsense. Like it or not people, this forum isn't for you. You're just here to make it seem like there's a scrap of life in the place. So most of these debates go nowhere precisely because nobody is motivated by your happiness or enjoyment of CollarChat. You're here to serve a purpose, not enjoy yourselves. I wonder how long this post'll last.

needlesandpins -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 3:21:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins ...the point is that if in a thread someone posts something that shows them to be acting like a hypocrite then we should have the right to say so. it's no a personal attack it's a statement of truth. ...the facts as they stand show you to be behaving like a hypocrite. Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? One would be a TOS violation, and the other not. Right? It's unfair to blame your unwillingness to do so on the mods. Pam because context is everything. sometimes you can not say the former because it doesn't fit the context of the whole conversation. needles

Politesub53 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 3:23:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins ...the point is that if in a thread someone posts something that shows them to be acting like a hypocrite then we should have the right to say so. it's no a personal attack it's a statement of truth. ...the facts as they stand show you to be behaving like a hypocrite. Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? One would be a TOS violation, and the other not. Right? It's unfair to blame your unwillingness to do so on the mods. Pam I see little difference in the two terms. Anyone who wants to call someone a hypocrite can just say, thats hypocritical. its one and the same thing. IE, definition of a hypocrite is someone who uses hypocritical language. Just my two pence worth.

mons -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 4:24:28 AM)
Op I have found that if someone attacks you and if you say one thing back and this has happen to me the Mods do take sides on certain sights! I said things only when I had been spoken to in a manner that is disrespectful and I would not set back and take it! I just put a person on ig, and leave it alone! Mons ( yes it has changed but there are still many wise people here for sure!!!!)

Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 5:55:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins ...the point is that if in a thread someone posts something that shows them to be acting like a hypocrite then we should have the right to say so. it's no a personal attack it's a statement of truth. ...the facts as they stand show you to be behaving like a hypocrite. Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? One would be a TOS violation, and the other not. Right? It's unfair to blame your unwillingness to do so on the mods. Pam because context is everything. sometimes you can not say the former because it doesn't fit the context of the whole conversation. needles If context is everything, then why the so-called "You Rule". With a tiny modicum of creativity and a room temperature IQ, posts can be made that would make a sailor blush without that word anywhere nearby.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 6:16:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins ...the point is that if in a thread someone posts something that shows them to be acting like a hypocrite then we should have the right to say so. it's no a personal attack it's a statement of truth. ...the facts as they stand show you to be behaving like a hypocrite. Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? One would be a TOS violation, and the other not. Right? It's unfair to blame your unwillingness to do so on the mods. Pam I see little difference in the two terms. Anyone who wants to call someone a hypocrite can just say, thats hypocritical. its one and the same thing. IE, definition of a hypocrite is someone who uses hypocritical language. Just my two pence worth. "That's stupid" is different because it is referring to behavior. "You are stupid" is a personal attack and as such is not allowed.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 6:35:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi "That's stupid" is different because it is referring to behavior. "You are stupid" is a personal attack and as such is not allowed. But if that remark is made in a direct response to a poster, doesn't it amount to the same thing - a personal attack?? Unfortunately, the "you" rule isn't always as definitive as one might think. There are many other situations where you can be just as 'personal' in your response without breaking the "you" rule. Equally well, one can use "you" to mean a group of people rather than an individual. As needles pointed out, English is very much a contextual language and those sort of hard and fast rules can't always be applied unilaterally. I recently used a phrase "you asshats" in a post that got pulled when I was obviously refering to a group of people and not any specific individual. The GL I got quoted just that bit - "you asshats", so I know that's what got it pulled. And yet 'asshats' was used in the original post as well as other replies. So the "you" rule isn't always used with common sense.

Aedonix -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 6:39:42 AM)
makes me wonder if posts are modded using the "Find" function looking for among other words the word "You" (so this post is now flagged lol) if that is so. typos are your friend and you (there it is again) could simply out in "ypu asshat" and it would never be found lol

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625