RE: The decline of collarme

RE: The decline of collarme (Full Version)

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

Message

NuevaVida -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:20:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You left off the "This isn't cafemom.com" Not for any reason other than it didn't seem relevant to me, in my post. quote: Leaving that off totally changes the tenor and meaning of the post does it not? Not really, does it? If so, I don't get it. A BDSM club wouldn't be CafeMom, either. Maybe I'm being obtuse. quote: This is a site with Sadists, masochists and everykink of kinky adult oriented person you can imagine. I'm aware. So is mud-slinging a "kink" now, that's practiced here? There are several "kinks" that are against TOS to discuss here, obviously because they're illegal. But, for example, saying "Fuck you, Hill, you worthless piece of shit" (using that as an example, not in a serious context) is also against TOS. I'm perfectly OK with that, as that's not something I'd say to someone, nor is it something I want to come here and read every day. Obviously, others are perfectly OK with that. So there must be some middle ground, yes? Saying Hey I can say this, I'm a sadist, is not logic that I'd subscribe to - adding "this isn't cafemom.com" or not. quote: What it is NOT is a site where people freak out, castigate someone and start a soccermom flame war when someone says mentione spanking misbehaving UM's. Well since we're not supposed to even be talking about kids here, why would that even be a subject on this site? That would be some risky grey area for CM, in my opinion. I'm really not even sure I understand your point here. People do freak out over all kinds of subject matter. How people handle themselves while they're freaking out is what's important, in my world, anyway. Yep, people get mad and say shit. And guess what? The people they say shit to get mad and say shit back. And if what they're saying are personal character attacks, it turns into a mud-slinging mess, which is why doing so is against TOS. Now, I understand some find huge entertainment in that sort of mess. Does the majority? I have no idea. I know I don't. I don't come here to watch or engage in mud slinging. I come here to have enjoyable conversations about various topics. I don't come here to get walloped by someone else's mud, or even have to weed through pages of it, under the logic of, "Well it's a site full of sadists, what did you expect?" That's not a reasonable answer to me, and that's what I addressed. quote: We have adults who live on the fringes. Children are not allowed and weak hearts are not recommended. That said, why has it become a place where words that are allowed even in church cannot be uttered? It depends on context, I suppose. Words are just words. What you're doing with them is what matters.

NuevaVida -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Some time ago I suggested a remedy to all the posts in this thread. What we need is a separate forum with NO moderation except what is illegal under the law of the sites home. When a complaint of violation of standard TOS is made temporarily link to the NON moderated forum at least until the mod has time to read through the thread and make appropriate decisions. Threads could also be started in the NON moderated forums if people should chose to participate. Seems to me this would solve all problems stated in this thread AND make for some interesting debates for those with thick skin. Those that do not like that type of rhetoric can chose to stay in the standard moderate rooms. Butch It's probably a forum I, and probably several others, would not go to, and it would probably thin out the current forums even more, since people would start threads in the non-moderated forum instead of the moderated ones. I can't see this increasing participation in any way, but yes, it would give people a place to flame-throw if they so wanted.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:30:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida It depends on context, I suppose. Words are just words. What you're doing with them is what matters. That is presisely the point. When we cannot say that a person who cannot read or write is "illiterate" or that a person who lacks knowledge is "ignorant" because someone might feel 'hurt' even though that is the precise definition of the word we might as well only post [Censored] for every reply to every question.

kdsub -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:30:20 PM)
quote: start threads in the non-moderated forum instead of the moderated ones I do believe some would but most of the time they would not be...shall we say worthy threads...Otherwise anyone who desires a serious discussion with a variety of participants will not start a thread in the NON moderated room. However…. Rather than one or two posters shutting down the whole thread it could just be linked to the non moderated forum at least until mods can get to it properly. I also think the NON moderated forum will be somewhat self moderating. If there is someone I continually dislike their posting style I will just hide their posts. If enough do this, as I think will happen, then the dumb ass will be irrelevant and eventually will stop posting if he or she can’t get a rise. Butch

JeffBC -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:35:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Some time ago I suggested a remedy to all the posts in this thread. What we need is a separate forum with NO moderation except what is illegal under the law of the sites home. When a complaint of violation of standard TOS is made temporarily link to the NON moderated forum at least until the mod has time to read through the thread and make appropriate decisions. I think this idea has little cost (as compared to some of the other "low cost" ideas I've heard) and benefits at least one select group of folks. So by that measure it's a win. I know I wouldn't ever go into such a forum. I'm curious whether Aswad would.

DesFIP -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:38:10 PM)
I agree with NV. Saying that you're a sadist doesn't mean you can go around assaulting anyone you want. The issue of consent is important. If NV, or I, or anyone else doesn't want to get smacked by you, and you do it anyway, in real life we call the cops. Online, that's the mods job. Just because you're a sadist Hilly, doesn't mean you want to be attacked by others. And the more that kind of behavior is tolerated, the more people stop posting. Which leads the site to die. And since it's a privately owned site which is trying to make money, obviously they don't want that. If you want to start your own site where personal attacks are permitted, do so. I'd be interested in seeing how many people you get to join.

JeffBC -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:42:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP If you want to start your own site where personal attacks are permitted, do so. I'd be interested in seeing how many people you get to join. Judging from my other internet bulletin board experience I'd say he'd get a LOT of other people. It was also one of those same places where I got the signature line: I win at internet discussion boards Which sums up nicely what I saw there.

LaTigresse -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:50:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP If you want to start your own site where personal attacks are permitted, do so. I'd be interested in seeing how many people you get to join. If the layout was decent, it was cheap or free, and there were reasonably intelligent posters with interesting topics to discuss........I'd join in a heartbeat. Personal attacks, unless physical, and especially by random people via the net, don't phase me.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:54:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I agree with NV. Saying that you're a sadist doesn't mean you can go around assaulting anyone you want. The issue of consent is important. If NV, or I, or anyone else doesn't want to get smacked by you, and you do it anyway, in real life we call the cops. Online, that's the mods job. Just because you're a sadist Hilly, doesn't mean you want to be attacked by others. And the more that kind of behavior is tolerated, the more people stop posting. Which leads the site to die. And since it's a privately owned site which is trying to make money, obviously they don't want that. If you want to start your own site where personal attacks are permitted, do so. I'd be interested in seeing how many people you get to join. The point is being missed to far it's not even hitting the right planet. NOONE said that a Sadist has a right to anything nonconsensual. I said "It's a site full of fucking Sadists for fucks sake." THAT'S IT Nothing about me being a Sadist. Nothing about doing anything to anyone much less in a nonconsensual manner. All I see is a bunch of hysteria by people who either deliberately or accidentally misinterpret a simple sentence. The whole point is that this site is supposed to be a group of people who are on the fringe of acceptability (or over the fringe). We have sadists, masochists, bondage bunnies, pain freaks, cutters, branders, people who like to hit and be hit with bullwhips. People who like to shove their fist up someone's ass to the elbow and others who desire to accept the same and about everything else you can imagine. That being said, language that is allowed in church or a parent teacher conference is censured. People can speak freely about nailing a sub's cock to a pine board to hold him still while you carve your initials in his ass and fist him to the elbow but god forbid you call someone who cannot read or write illiterate (which is the definition of the word). Am I more clear?

Aswad -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:54:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Seems to me this would solve all problems stated in this thread AND make for some interesting debates for those with thick skin. No, it sounds like it'll generate a lot of shouting matches that engender contagious butthurt that will spill over into the rest of the boards. Also, it doesn't address the problems stated by Orion, the problems stated by me, or ... need I go on? IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:56:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC I know I wouldn't ever go into such a forum. I'm curious whether Aswad would. Hell no. IWYW, — Aswad.

NuevaVida -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:56:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida It depends on context, I suppose. Words are just words. What you're doing with them is what matters. That is presisely the point. When we cannot say that a person who cannot read or write is "illiterate" or that a person who lacks knowledge is "ignorant" because someone might feel 'hurt' even though that is the precise definition of the word we might as well only post [Censored] for every reply to every question. Right. That would, in my opinion, fall too far out of what I'd consider balanced. In the other direction, so would allowing people to call someone an ignorant piece of shit. Balanced moderation is the key. But saying we can say whatever we want because we're sadists, which is what your point was that I responded to, lacks logic to me.

NuevaVida -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 1:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: start threads in the non-moderated forum instead of the moderated ones I do believe some would but most of the time they would not be...shall we say worthy threads...Otherwise anyone who desires a serious discussion with a variety of participants will not start a thread in the NON moderated room. However…. Rather than one or two posters shutting down the whole thread it could just be linked to the non moderated forum at least until mods can get to it properly. I also think the NON moderated forum will be somewhat self moderating. If there is someone I continually dislike their posting style I will just hide their posts. If enough do this, as I think will happen, then the dumb ass will be irrelevant and eventually will stop posting if he or she can’t get a rise. Butch Perhaps. And I'm not totally discounting the idea. I've just seen unmoderated groups eventually die because everyone got tired of the over-the-top bickering, eventually.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 2:01:29 PM)
I believe a few years ago that was done by the management then, and it was met with similar uproar and cries of injustice. It appeared to me that several popular posters were hit with it, and their friends got upset about it. It seems to be a yoyo thing, with new groups of "need to change this or the site will perish" attitudes that have caused issues in the past. I have apparently missed the plethora of disappearing topics and posts that are being discussed. I suppose the reason would be that I look at a discussion, and if jackasses are steering it to flames and off the actual subject, I just stop reading and usually do not contribute. Why should I post a rational and thoughtful post among a bunch of bashing each other, when time and experience has shown me it will just degenerate further away from the actual topic? If there are major issues happening, then I am all for hitting the person responsible, or a group if it is mob attack. I would also do some kind of three strike rule or something, as I have been reading along the lines of "if this gets pulled it was worth it to tell them off". quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Your opinion on using [Awaiting Approval] more often, thread locks/pulls less often, and reply pulling only when strictly needed? That's what I'm advocating as a middle ground. IWYW, — Aswad.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 2:01:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida It depends on context, I suppose. Words are just words. What you're doing with them is what matters. That is presisely the point. When we cannot say that a person who cannot read or write is "illiterate" or that a person who lacks knowledge is "ignorant" because someone might feel 'hurt' even though that is the precise definition of the word we might as well only post [Censored] for every reply to every question. Right. That would, in my opinion, fall too far out of what I'd consider balanced. In the other direction, so would allowing people to call someone an ignorant piece of shit. Balanced moderation is the key. I didn't say "ignorant piece of shit" I said 'ignorant' which is defined as Websters as "lacking knowledge of a subject". For instance, I am ignorant of accounting practices. I am also ignorant of salvage law. Those are just 2 things that I am ignorant of. Once again, you are reading things that aren't written.

kdsub -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 2:03:29 PM)
quote: If you want to start your own site where personal attacks are permitted, do so. I'd be interested in seeing how many people you get to join. I am not sure if you were directing this post to me...but let me answer according to my suggestion. Everyone on this site is of legal age...They would have the choice to enter the NON moderated forum or not. The forum would serve two purposes. The first would be a temporary location of a thread that a complaint has been made against until a moderator can take the time to sort and judge the complaint properly. Then it can be moved back to the standard forum with the necessary changes made. In the mean time those that have invested a lot of time and thinking in the thread would not lose their input and could continue to enter new posts at any time. The second purpose would be threads started in the NON moderated area by people that want or expect a heated no holds barred exchange. No one would be forced to participate in this type of thread and as I've stated above would be self regulating. Above all it would solve all the problems posted in this thread and others like it. Butch

Kaliko -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 2:04:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP If you want to start your own site where personal attacks are permitted, do so. I'd be interested in seeing how many people you get to join. I would. :) ETA: Honestly, my main requirement for a discussion board is that my postings don't always have to be as clean or family friendly as, say, on Facebook. So the only places I go are here and Fet. I would be happy to try out a different board, un-moderated and all, as long as I can say "fuck" once in awhile. (My mother says I have "a mouth.")

Aswad -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 2:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse If the layout was decent, it was cheap or free, and there were reasonably intelligent posters with interesting topics to discuss........I'd join in a heartbeat. I think the collection of people on CM is the main reason I post here, though some have left. The main reason I don't think another forum would work as well is, people do leave for other reasons, or go on sabbaticals, and without something to pull people in, you don't end up getting new input or new additions to the pool of posters. On CM, the other side serves this function (although, granted, that's the money pig and thus the main focus of the owners, presumably). If I thought I could solve that problem and get the interesting posters from here to come along, I would've done it in December, but since neither is likely, it's not going to happen. You'd need quite a bit of critical mass to be able to attract people without a flytrap (like the other side here), and CM is its collection of posters. IWYW, — Aswad.

NuevaVida -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 2:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam The point is being missed to far it's not even hitting the right planet. NOONE said that a Sadist has a right to anything nonconsensual. I said "It's a site full of fucking Sadists for fucks sake." THAT'S IT Nothing about me being a Sadist. Nothing about doing anything to anyone much less in a nonconsensual manner. All I see is a bunch of hysteria by people who either deliberately or accidentally misinterpret a simple sentence. The whole point is that this site is supposed to be a group of people who are on the fringe of acceptability (or over the fringe). We have sadists, masochists, bondage bunnies, pain freaks, cutters, branders, people who like to hit and be hit with bullwhips. People who like to shove their fist up someone's ass to the elbow and others who desire to accept the same and about everything else you can imagine. That being said, language that is allowed in church or a parent teacher conference is censured. People can speak freely about nailing a sub's cock to a pine board to hold him still while you carve your initials in his ass and fist him to the elbow but god forbid you call someone who cannot read or write illiterate (which is the definition of the word). Am I more clear? A bunch of hysteria? Really? Hysteria? We must have very different definitions of hysteria. I think you're missing our point. You said "As far as being 'mean' to people. It's a site full of fucking Sadists for fucks sake. this isn't Cafemom.com ." As in, because it's a site full of sadists, then people should know sadists are going to be mean here. I am saying I disagree, and I explained why. I walk into a BDSM club knowing it's full of sadists. So what? Doesn't give them the right to impose their sadistic enjoyments on me. I wouldn't tolerate that there, nor would I here. Please tell me where you see hysteria.

kdsub -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/9/2013 2:08:14 PM)
quote: No, it sounds like it'll generate a lot of shouting matches that engender contagious butthurt that will spill over into the rest of the boards. Also, it doesn't address the problems stated by Orion, the problems stated by me, or ... need I go on? Yes...because the standard board would still have the same as now TOS regulation but would address your problem and Orions exactly. It would allow continued discussion until it is moderated appropriately. You do not have to participate in the forum if you like but i would like a thread to remain open while being moderated. As far as butthurt carrying over... don't go there then...you are a grown man capable of your own decisions. Butch

Page: << < prev 45 46 [47] 48 49 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125