RE: The decline of collarme

RE: The decline of collarme (Full Version)

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

Message

TAFKAA -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 12:53:02 AM)
Banana.

tazzygirl -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 12:53:59 AM)
ROFL

metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 12:54:21 AM)
Fuck you. Pam

TAFKAA -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 12:55:12 AM)
That's it, I'm starting a poll.

metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 12:55:26 AM)
Bananna. Pam

LadyPact -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 1:03:05 AM)
I'm not going to quote the entire post but I agreed with the majority of what you said, Awareness. (Yeah, I'm still going to call you that because that other name doesn't click with Me.) ToS is absolutely a legal CYA for the site. I don't honestly think anybody's got a problem with that. Keeping the site out of the legal fray benefits all posters because it keeps the place open to post. I did want to discuss this part: quote: People love drama, stories, narrative. It's those very aspects of passion - which the current regime seems determined to stamp out - that fire the imagination of the newbies. They're curious and looking for excitement and are received with a yawn by a bunch of bored women in spandex eating cucumber sandwiches. This jaded sense of ennui permeates these forums in a stultifying miasmic haze of "been there, done that". Without the characterization of clothing and eating habits, I probably fall into this category. It's not that I'm not happy that new folks are jazzed up and excited about first getting into the world of BDSM. I just don't share the excitement of those first baby steps because I've walked that path so many times. Those simple 101 kind of topics aren't going to interest Me and it's really better that I just stay off of the threads that I feel are so basic that I could just pull up a post from five years ago that would cover the subject. In staying off of said thread, I'm able to fulfill the 'don't be a c*nt' part.

LadyPact -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 1:05:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck. For the record, whipher1 is a real person and not my sock. Fuck. Pam I'm willing to confirm that.

TAFKAA -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 1:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Those simple 101 kind of topics aren't going to interest Me and it's really better that I just stay off of the threads that I feel are so basic that I could just pull up a post from five years ago that would cover the subject. In staying off of said thread, I'm able to fulfill the 'don't be a c*nt' part. Yes, and that's perfectly acceptable, although it does miss a critical point. These people aren't just looking for information. For a dry recitation of facts. They're looking for interaction and discussion. The mistake many regulars make is to presume that the need which must be fulfilled is a lack of information - and that consequently, giving them information will satisfy that need. There's a natural stratification of the membership based upon experience. The jaded need a place to hang out, but the newbies and those still developing benefit from being in a peer group which shares their excitement and sense of discovery. Without being able to readily find that peer group, they're not going to hang around long unless they have a humiliation fetish.

TAFKAA -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 1:09:58 AM)
This thread is turning pear-shaped.

littlewonder -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 2:53:10 AM)
I just don't get the newbies at all. Even when I was a "newbie" I wasn't that daft. I mean, most of the questions asked are just weird, like somehow when they signed onto this site, they bent over their chair and their brain just fell out onto the ground. Just because you're a "newbie" does not mean that at 50 years old, you suddenly forget how life actually works. It's like all of a sudden every single thought process in their head just disappears. WTF? Maybe it's just me though. I dunno. Newbies just make me wanna throw them out the door and tell them to go look for their brain. When they have found it they can return.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 3:18:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lizi I believe you may have missed my point. Which was that if standard operating procedure on this site was for the admin to personally vet all the pictures one by one, if an illegal one slipped through, it would be formally approved as being ok to be on here. So if someone reported this illegal picture to the authorities, the site could probably be sued for posting illegal pictures. You can't really say "ok...we'll vet all the pictures and any that escape our notice will be picked up by the public reporting process," if you are also saying "we will personally examine each picture one by one and the ones that we allow to be posted are said to be proper and legal by this site." It's like merchandisers having to stand by what they post in their advertisements or on their packaging. I didn't miss your point lizi. Perhaps you missed mine?? As it stands now, you can upload any pic you like. Nasty ones, illegal ones, inappropriate ones... anything and everything. So it's no different to having illegal pics if 'one slipped through the net'. The legal position for the owners is no different. They can be just as guilty of illegal images on the site whether they are vetted or not - the authorities will still prosecute if they so choose to. The fact that images are not currently vetted has no bearing on the situation and isn't a get-out clause; which is what you appear to be saying. All images uploaded to CM by anyone are deemed to be "proper and legal by this site" right now because they have the ToS. And by allowing them to be uploaded at all, against the ToS, is still no escape from the authorities. At least by having some sort of rudimentary preliminary screening, most of them will be caught before they hit the site.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 3:30:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: They don't have to be art critics. If they see a pic of a person in a photo, even if it's not the profile person they can let it go until someone reports it - just like they do now. If it isn't, and its an obvious pic not of the person, it initially gets kicked out unless the person appeals the decision. Define obvious? If its a man's profile, and he posts a woman's pic, how do they know that isnt his slave, or his mistress, and he has either rexpressed permission by ownership, or orders, to place that photo? It's still a pic of a person. I don't see where the confusion is. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: As far as I'm concerned, unless you happen to have a personal piece of Warhol's art that he personally painted just for you, all of his works are commercial, up for public viewing, and certainly should not be used as a photo on a profile. That isnt the definition of commercial artwork. And what you are quoting isn't the full definition as per Websters - only a partial extract. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Maybe we are confusing what you call 'commercial' and what I interpret the word commercial to be? To me, anything on public display, anywhere, makes it commercial. Why? Because it is being used to draw in money from other external sources even if not from the sale of the art itself. I gave you the definition. commercial art noun graphic art created specifically for commercial uses, especially for advertising, illustrations in magazines or books, or the like. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commercial+art Not all of Warhol's work is commercial artwork. And neither Webster nor I agree with that extract. And FWIW, according to the South Bank Show, art on public display is commercial because most (if not all) of the artworks are for sale - at a price; including those of Andy Warhol. That makes it commercial.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 3:45:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RemoteUser Regarding the current flow of the thread's river...if the site puts the onus on the individual regarding the posting of copyrighted work, then if the hammer falls, it lands on the nail, not the thumb. Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, the onus is on the site, not the individual user. That's why most sites have a ToS and a vetting proceedure. Case in point is Pirate Bay. The site owners are the ones being prosecuted, not the users. The same can be said for those sites that had kiddie porn on them. They are the ones that got shut down and the site owners prosecuted, not the users. quote: ORIGINAL: RemoteUser Frankly, the only responsibility of governing that the staff should have to carry is their own dictates, i.e. what is considered explicit. If the staffing or resources are low, then it might behoove them to slow the expansion of the roster by requiring profiles to be given the "ok" before the account is activated. I've seen lots of sites use this method successfully in the past; it doesn't have to be intrusive or judgmental, merely a checklist of what's allowed and what's not. After that, the individual is liable. The same method could be applied to adding pictures, video journals (for explicit usage primarily, no one whacking off while giggling in a high-pitched voice), whatever is appropriate. Yep, that's what I have been saying [8D] quote: ORIGINAL: RemoteUser If that seems too restrictive, consider the resources and staffing already in place, and how taxed they would be with a free site that has a few hundred thousand members. Even if the idea doesn't settle well, I'd rather cast an idea out on the table, then mumble in the sidelines. I prefer to be part of a solution - but that's just me. Fab has 90,000+ users online every day and it's maintained and run by just 2 people - the site owners. And it's FREE! So it's perfectly feasable to have someone skim through the initial pics requested for uploading. I don't see it as a major people investment to achieve this goal.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 3:49:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I remember reading on a website somewhere, don't remember anymore, that it would actually take at least 30 moderators to volunteer on a site this size. I don't think we have anywhere even close to that. Maybe they should contact the owners of Fab?? They seem to do pretty well with just 2 people for a free site and 90,000+ daily users. Perhaps CM is bloated and super-inefficient and needs a good look at how it's run??

Moonhead -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 4:44:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RemoteUser quote: ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker You'll have to forgive me Hill, I do not live in 1996 anymore. Then shouldn't you be more about the glitter, and less about the cape? [:D] Vampires. They don't make em like they used to. ponders creating a spoof etiquette list in Random Stupidity Actually, they do, but proper non sparkly vampires are harder to find these days. It's infuriating, but for every shitawful Stephanie Meyer vampire book there's a couple of good ones that don't get half as much attention. Hell, Kim Newman's Anno Dracula series is currently being reprinted, even if there's more fuss over the godawful films of sparkly boy and his whiny bitch...

Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 6:18:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I have answered lots of question. I made a decision not to answer yours in the limited capacity you wanted me too. Thats the plain and smiple truth. And you are still acting butt hurt over it. . You made the decision to not answer because it would have showed your position was full of shit and you're petrified of being proven wrong.......... bottom line And now you are a mind reader? You actually know better than I why I didnt answer something you were trying to force me to answer in a way you decided would give you the best opportunity to attack my position? You really must think I am stupid. Sad for you, I am far from it. Then stop acting like you are. It's unbecoming.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 6:20:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I see zero TOS violations in this thread. Noone is calling anyone names. Noone is mentioning illegal activities except to say they're verboten. Noone is attacking anyone. Noone is attacking anyone's kink. Where would there be a place for them to step in? So why the fuck can't we do that more often? ETA: Is this thread any less for the absence of those? Pam We do. The problem occurs when someone whines to the mods and they decide that a brand new interpretation is necessary so they can take action. As I told Gamma many months ago, just because someone complains doesn't mean a violation has occurred. Sometimes the complainer is just a whiny little bitch.

Moonhead -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 6:24:09 AM)
It could even be argued that with the rules being interpreted or bent to accomodate specific whiney little bitches, that's another example of favouritism in action. (And that's the aspect of the moderation in here I have a real problem with myself: if the TOS aren't going to be applied to all evenhandedly, then they shouldn't be applied to anybody. Claiming that the rules are universal and then only applying them selectively is taking the piss.)

descrite -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 7:34:26 AM)
quote: The legal position for the owners is no different. They can be just as guilty of illegal images on the site whether they are vetted or not - the authorities will still prosecute if they so choose to. The fact that images are not currently vetted has no bearing on the situation and isn't a get-out clause; which is what you appear to be saying. Actually, that's (sadly) not the case. The court has found in favor of "unmoderated" boards and practices, because if I'm not looking at something, then I can't see it. When I start playing whack-a-mole, while it might make a better environment for users, it exposes me to more prosecution risk. ["I" = "mods/site owners," of course]

EsotericLady -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/8/2013 7:46:50 AM)
(LMAO) This post is absolutely CHOICE!!!! Bravo! quote: ORIGINAL: descrite TNDommeK, to become a mod, a user is selected from the herd based on stamina, power, length of underarm hair, and personality quotient (as determined by a 1970s board game called "Know Your Self!" which had a Bakelite spinner dial and claimed to work better than the MMPI). One the few are chosen, the final Mod-ination decision is made during a secret ballot of all surviving Mods, who meet in the Basilica on the third Thursday of October, disguised by cowls. Dead mods only get half a vote. Each Mod who gets voted in will receive a packet of beef jerky, a sceptre, and a lifetime pass to Staples Center. These are presented to the new Mod during the ordination which is hosted at the Twin Forks Doubletree in Billings, Montana (dinner is covered, but tip is the responsibility of the new Mods). Mods who don't receive enough votes are culled from the herd, and fed to next year's prospects. So, yeah-- it's a bit secret.

Page: << < prev 41 42 [43] 44 45 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625