RE: suggested addition to FAQ

RE: suggested addition to FAQ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:13:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 it is ALWAYS how a question is worded rather the content which inspires ridicule. With all due respect, that's bullshit. Maybe (in your experience) it's OFTEN, but it's certainly not ALWAYS. Case in point: Someone recently asked "how do I xyz?" (and it wasn't really anything that could be found in a FAQ). Person A responded by saying the over-obvious only slam-dunk answer, but then followed that up with 2 other less-than-perfect but still very helpful answers. Then person B quotes person A, but takes the time to edit down the quote to only his first response (which, by itself, sounds smartass) and then remarks about how stupid some of the questions asked here are. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 If someone does act like an asshole despite the newbie being cool, then ignore them. You don't need to fight anyone's battles other than your own. You're right; I don't need to do anything. But that doesn't make me wrong for calling out the asshole. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I never try to change anyone, I can only change my reaction to them. And my reaction is to call an asshole an asshole.

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:16:54 PM)
Make no mistake. I'm not taking any of this personally. We just have different opinions. Let's say, for debate's sake, that I would happen to be a narcissist and maybe the whole board is as well. Let's say that all of your extremes are true. What are you going to do about it? What is your position in making this a better place? Are you offering education, a friendly face, or going that extra mile to help folks that happen to cross here? You don't get to say that other folks aren't doing what you think they should without being willing to do it yourself. So, are you going to be the change that you would like to see or are you pissing in the wind?

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:18:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 However, I do have to say that I tend to agree with the OP in that I've seen a number of threads where people take the time to post to tell a newbie they're not going to answer their question, that it's been asked too many times before, and oftentimes pulling out the "dead horse" smiley. I often wonder why so many people take the time to do that, when it would be so much quicker and easier to just answer the question. It's because you are wrong in your premise. It's not quicker and easier to type out the same responses as many of us often have done before. If somebody comes to the forum and asks an open ended question like 'what do you know about wax play?' I really am going to direct them to the search feature because it would take Me at least two hours to type out everything I know. It's not that I'm not willing to answer the question. It's that I have answered it before and have spent a lot of time typing out the replies prior. Just like the munch scene, I'm not here for the sole benefit of the new person that shows up. I have My own interests. It's unreasonable to expect everybody to stop what they are doing just because a new person steps into the room. Go back and read that again. Zonie63 did not say that it's faster to answer the question than to direct them to a FAQ or other resource. He said that it's faster to answer the question than to take the time to tell the person that you're not going to answer their question, that they're an idiot, and that their mother dresses them funny. What you do is the right reaction. He's arguing against the wrong reaction. While I may not agree with "faster", it's definitely easier to simply ignore the redundant question than to waste time crapping on it. Anyone who does that and then bitches about newbies wasting their time is a moron.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Make no mistake. I'm not taking any of this personally. We just have different opinions. Let's say, for debate's sake, that I would happen to be a narcissist and maybe the whole board is as well. Let's say that all of your extremes are true. What are you going to do about it? That question is answered in the OP. I'm warning the newbie.

CougarRick -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:31:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez You're lucky. Most of the time, the people who fit somewhere on my list have a 4-digit number after "Posts:" Seriously, if someone is shitting that much, they really need to consult a doctor about their digestive problems. Personally I will never understand people who feel the need to be rude to a newbie (or anyone else for that matter), just because the person may have crossed a line or demonstrated ignorance. Generally speaking I look at intent, and unless a persons comment is deliberately harmful/rude/hurtful to another I try to give the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I will try to offer corrective suggestion, but if I don't really have anything to constructive to offer, I refrain from comment. But thats me and I can't expect others to adhere to my personal code of conduct, and would be wasting my time waiting for bad manners to be weeded out of the internet. I come onto the internet knowing that anonymity brings out the worst in some, and just chalk it up to experience. Again, it doesn't take long to figure out who is a dickhead and who is merely offering constructive criticism, so I disregard the former and try to deal constructively with the latter. Usually the latter end up being very nice in the long run.

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Go back and read that again. Zonie63 did not say that it's faster to answer the question than to direct them to a FAQ or other resource. He said that it's faster to answer the question than to take the time to tell the person that you're not going to answer their question, that they're an idiot, and that their mother dresses them funny. What you do is the right reaction. He's arguing against the wrong reaction. While I may not agree with "faster", it's definitely easier to simply ignore the redundant question than to waste time crapping on it. Anyone who does that and then bitches about newbies wasting their time is a moron. Sorry, but logistically, it's not faster to answer the question than to tell someone to piss off. (It's supposed to be funny..... LIKE A JOKE. Ha, ha.) By the way, that search feature thing comes up no matter how long a person has been here. Just last week, NBMG started a thread about drop that she was having trouble finding info about. I didn't type out everything that I knew about the subject, but gave her some help to search what she was looking for. If she had more questions than that, I would have helped. I just wasn't in the position at that time to start from scratch.

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez That question is answered in the OP. I'm warning the newbie. Weak, dude. What are you doing to change it?

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:41:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Sorry, but logistically, it's not faster to answer the question than to tell someone to piss off. (It's supposed to be funny..... LIKE A JOKE. Ha, ha.) True. ;-) But I think the main point is that it's fastest to do nothing. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact By the way, that search feature thing comes up no matter how long a person has been here. Just last week, NBMG started a thread about drop that she was having trouble finding info about. I didn't type out everything that I knew about the subject, but gave her some help to search what she was looking for. If she had more questions than that, I would have helped. I just wasn't in the position at that time to start from scratch. Undoubtedly. I can tell that you'd be very helpful, without wasting a lot of your time. I just think you're cutting too much slack for those that aren't helpful at all AND still manage to waste their own time -- and then complain about it, like it's someone else's fault.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 5:51:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez That question is answered in the OP. I'm warning the newbie. Weak, dude. What are you doing to change it? I'm getting into the seatbelt and athletic cup business. Seriously, I've gotten some agreement here, including some testimony of "I used to be worse about that; but I'm trying to be better" comments. So maybe reminding/encouraging them to keep trying? And what about similar people who read this thread but don't comment? Or the newbie that reads this thread, is warned, but also encouraged that not everyone is going to be an asshole. It's not weak to comment on something and nudge a bit without producing sweeping change. It's only weak if you promise the change and then don't deliver after you're in office. (Oops, did I say that last part out loud?)

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 6:43:46 PM)
I'm glad to see you making a commitment. I'll see you on the threads over the next year.

Zonie63 -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 7:19:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 However, I do have to say that I tend to agree with the OP in that I've seen a number of threads where people take the time to post to tell a newbie they're not going to answer their question, that it's been asked too many times before, and oftentimes pulling out the "dead horse" smiley. I often wonder why so many people take the time to do that, when it would be so much quicker and easier to just answer the question. It's because you are wrong in your premise. It's not quicker and easier to type out the same responses as many of us often have done before. If somebody comes to the forum and asks an open ended question like 'what do you know about wax play?' I really am going to direct them to the search feature because it would take Me at least two hours to type out everything I know. It's not that I'm not willing to answer the question. It's that I have answered it before and have spent a lot of time typing out the replies prior. Just like the munch scene, I'm not here for the sole benefit of the new person that shows up. I have My own interests. It's unreasonable to expect everybody to stop what they are doing just because a new person steps into the room. I can see what you're saying, at least as far as open-ended questions are concerned. But even if you don't wish to take the time to answer it, maybe someone else will. But if someone asks what is 2+2, it would be much easier to simply type "4" than to type anything else. If someone passes me on the street and asks me what time it is, I'll tell them. It's just the kind of guy I am. But nobody has to stop what they're doing just because there's a new poster making a new thread. There's always the option of skipping over newbie threads entirely and not posting at all. It's just like with all these findomme threads. Every time someone starts another one, there's always ten others who post immediately to say how much they hate findomme threads. Well, why in the hell do they keep reading and posting in those threads if they hate them so much? That's what I can't understand. Why expend time and energy doing that? There are some sections of this message board which I'm not interested in at all, but I don't go around to those threads and tell people I'm not interested in discussing their topic. That would be absurd.

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 8:48:01 PM)
I think I might not be expressing Myself well. Believe it or not, there is a happy medium between typing everything out every time a question is asked and just being an asshole. Some of us want to help to answer but can't take the time to write it out each and every time. Even the guidelines suggest people do a search of their question to see what information might be there. At the same time, I probably will continue to tell people they are crude if they decide they are entitled to answers about My sexual practices or think the forums are a cattle call to advertise that they want to experience a strap on. How many people do you know that would walk into a room full of strangers and start talking about their dick or what makes them cum? There really is more of that than the sweet and innocent intentioned that the OP refers to.

NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/22/2013 9:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I probably will continue to tell people they are crude if they decide they are entitled to answers about My sexual practices or think the forums are a cattle call to advertise that they want to experience a strap on. How many people do you know that would walk into a room full of strangers and start talking about their dick or what makes them cum? There really is more of that than the sweet and innocent intentioned that the OP refers to. Totally.

Extravagasm -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/23/2013 12:23:40 AM)
theRose4U . . . Some thoughts. Those, whose behavior bars them from a munch, aren't automatically rejected from CM forums. Though you've got this OP's MO and he knows it. quote: OP wannnapleez: see, I didn't do any of that shit. Some idiot who happens to share my area code did. So we have someone who can't distinguish between people and doesn't understand the difference between "now" and "then"; and that's the person telling others that they don't understand subtlety. . . . feel free to high-five yourself and say "My precious" over and over. That quote has four Freudian slips. Here's what it would have been if he were innocent: quote: see, I didn't do any of that shit. Someone who happens to share my area code may have. I don't know. So we have someone who can't distinguish between people; and that's the person telling others that they don't understand subtlety. . . . feel free to high-five yourself. AAkasha asked you the OP's predecessor identity, but you vanished. Perhaps no answer in private either, b/c she moved further in his favor after. This only left your knee responses, exemplifying what the OP slyly warned, can come from four digit posters. While he Bravos her. Less than ideal outcome.

Zonie63 -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/23/2013 3:11:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I think I might not be expressing Myself well. Believe it or not, there is a happy medium between typing everything out every time a question is asked and just being an asshole. Some of us want to help to answer but can't take the time to write it out each and every time. Even the guidelines suggest people do a search of their question to see what information might be there. Yes, I agree that there is a happy medium. I have no problem with people advising others to use the search feature to find the answer to their question, especially if it's a complex or involved question. quote: At the same time, I probably will continue to tell people they are crude if they decide they are entitled to answers about My sexual practices or think the forums are a cattle call to advertise that they want to experience a strap on. How many people do you know that would walk into a room full of strangers and start talking about their dick or what makes them cum? There really is more of that than the sweet and innocent intentioned that the OP refers to. In all fairness, though, there are threads of a sexual nature in this forum and seem to go along with the general culture of the forum. Many of the threads here and their subject matter would not be appropriate in real life public situations - or even on most internet message boards. Many forums don't even allow the use of profanity, yet it's allowed here.

MAINEiacMISTRESS -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/23/2013 3:22:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko I still think there should be some sort of "test" before being allowed on the boards. A fun, 5-question test...with questions like: If I want to post about a looking for a Mistress's poop in a bag, should I post that in: A. Ask a Mistress B. Sought or For Sale C. Craigslist D. No Soup For You! And then at the end, when they've finally gained entry, tell them under no uncertain terms are they to ask anything about the vanilla ice-cream cone. And when they do inevitably ask about the vanilla ice-cream cone, they are immediately sent into the dungeon, where they have to submit to a 10-question test in order to gain re-entry. ETA...I should clarify that the intent of the test would be to actually inform the new user as to the main rules of the forum, but in a fun way. I still MISS My icecream cone...that someone claimed to have eaten when I complained about wanting to SAVE it. :P

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/23/2013 7:48:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm theRose4U . . . Some thoughts. Those, whose behavior bars them from a munch, aren't automatically rejected from CM forums. Though you've got this OP's MO and he knows it. Ah yes, someone else who knows me so well !!! The omniscience in here is astounding !!! Oh well, at least theRose4U has someone to high-five with. quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm quote: OP wannnapleez: see, I didn't do any of that shit. ... Here's what it would have been if he were innocent: quote: see, I didn't do any of that shit. Someone who happens to share my area code may have. I don't know. ... I was taking theRose4U's word that the incidents actually happened. I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt that she isn't totally bat-shit crazy, but was simply leaping wildly to bad conclusions. See also previous discussions about not assuming the worst about others. quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm AAkasha asked you the OP's predecessor identity, but you vanished. Perhaps no answer in private either, b/c she moved further in his favor after. This only left your knee responses, exemplifying what the OP slyly warned, can come from four digit posters. While he Bravos her. Less than ideal outcome. So let me get this straight. theRose4U levels a public accusation. Someone with no skin in the game whatsoever requests evidence. So your "logical" conclusion is that the evidence would only be provided privately? Or is it possible that it's because there is no evidence, because the accusations are false? I find it very hard to believe (note: I cited that as personal belief, not as an omniscient declaration of someone's MO) that someone who leveled such a caustic and unprovoked accusation would not gleefully "out" the person against whom s/he leveled the accusation, given the opportunity. One other thought: Since you're such a master at logic and since you know me so well, would you care to explain the fact that Aakasha raised -- that my profile is 4 years old? I am assuming that the incidents to which theRose4U refers happened more recently than that. (At least I hope that she's not still stewing over something that happened here further back than that.) Note that I'm not asking you to totally "identify" who I "really" am. I realize that if there was any veracity to theRose4U's accusation, that pinning me down that specifically would be difficult. (Though, you're certainly welcome to do so.) But I'll just settle for a rational explanation of the 4-year issue. Or would admitting a lack of ability to do so render a "[l]ess than ideal outcome"?

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/23/2013 8:00:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact There really is more of that [wrong behavior] than the sweet and innocent intentioned that the OP refers to. I hope that you're just stating that as a fact -- with which I totally agree -- and not as as a statement that I was implying otherwise. Put another way -- I'll give props to the folks at whom I'm yelling -- they aren't prejudiced. Whether the newbie is an idiot, a jerk, or perfectly delightful, he'll get dumped on in the same way by those people. Equal opportunity assholes. :) (I realize that I need to clarify this even before I hit "OK". I'm not saying that someone who is an idiot or jerk shouldn't be dumped on. Nor am I saying that anyone who dumps is an asshole. I'm sure that I already made my distinction clear in earlier comments, but someone is still bound to misinterpret, nonetheless. There, now that I've killed any kick held by my "equal opportunity" closing line ...)

Rochsub2009 -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/23/2013 10:47:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim the suggestion that people could be a little nicer to new folks coming in is valid. I agree. Personally, I try to be helpful to newbies. After all, we were all newbies at one point. Newbies typically don't mean any harm when they ask "stupid questions". The reality is that "stupid questions" are only stupid to those who are more informed. But by definition, the newbie typically isn't very informed. So where is he/she supposed to go to get informed, if not here? Let's face it, it's much easier to post a question here than to go to a munch. But I must admit that I do get a little bit frustrated by people who ask questions that a simple Google search could answer. For example, why create a thread to ask "What does YMMV mean"? Google would be a faster, more efficient, and more comprehensive way of getting an answer to a question like that.

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/23/2013 10:49:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 In all fairness, though, there are threads of a sexual nature in this forum and seem to go along with the general culture of the forum. Many of the threads here and their subject matter would not be appropriate in real life public situations - or even on most internet message boards. Many forums don't even allow the use of profanity, yet it's allowed here. A part of that, I think, goes back to presentation. Two threads on the same topic can go completely different ways depending on how they are phrased. A politely asked question is going to get a better response than a rude one. Also, familiarity plays a part as well. Some people are more forthcoming about questions of a sexual nature when they feel they 'know' the person who is asking. The same question asked by someone they consider a stranger isn't going to get the same result.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875