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 (1/24/2013 3:53:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact What you pulled up doesn't anywhere cover your premise that when polite questions are asked, that people jump all over the poster. OMG! How many times do I have to say that it was not really a specific example before you stop telling me that is is not really a specific example? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact What your example showed was a clear cut case of not having social grace and people responded to the lack of it. People did not respond to it. People over-reacted to it. Especially stupid was when one person had (what I guess was assumed to be) a clever line and then others had to repeat it. Regardless, after the 435th person shit on the guy, there was no real reason for the 436th person to drop trou. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact It's got nothing to do with past history. You can see the thread for yourself. While you can't see the genital shot that was originally that person's avatar, you can see that the original post was nothing but a thinly veiled attempt ... Well, thank you for clearing up the fact that it wasn't silly over-generalization, but rather bullshit omniscience. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Yes, read ToS here. Also have on Alt when I was a member there and on Fet as well. I'm well versed in the community group stipulations and dungeon rules when I'm at events. I've written policy in places that I've been on the board, done guidelines where I proposed and managed events, and have made Myself familiar with the same whether I've been somewhere as a presenter or a guest. I had every expectation that you had read the requisite stuff. Based on what I have seen, that (and the other things you cite here) fits your nature. (Both of those statements are genuine praise.) And that's why I said "I imagine many did". quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact That's what a responsible member of a community does. I think this statement is a little idealistic, but let's roll with it to the n-th degree and assume that someone who hasn't read the TOS and FAQ and employed the Search feature is an irresponsible member of the community and needs to be called out. So why is it wrong to call out another irresponsible member of the community when they treat other members of the community poorly? Just because person A is an asshole, does not give person B carte blanche to be an asshole to person A. Both are irresponsible members of the community, and both need to be called out.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/24/2013 4:06:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha I wonder how many people here have gotten into a new hobby or interest (passionately) and went onto a new message board or forum and experienced being a newbie, and if they did indeed first lurk (for how long? a week? three days? a month?) before posting, read all the stickies, use the search function, etc. Then take into consideration how many people may actually be new to message boards in general. There could be some. The bottom line is that sometimes people come on here and they are extremely excited (as in, passionate, eye-opened, exhilarated, full of adrenalin and questions, confused, have insomnia from ingesting too much information, and if they are male are also perhaps dealing with feelings of arousal that are confusing or fantasies that make them ambivalent). So maybe they don't WANT to use the search function, maybe they want to be heard, to talk to another human being, to reach out to some people? I have been involved in a couple "new" communities online related to new hobbies in the last year and I tend to get really compulsive. So I am not the most patient person in the world. And sometimes there is a sense of urgency. Sometimes I search things but I don't feel like the answer is clear or I feel like it might be outdated so I am the one asking what may seem like a simple question and I have a post count of 3 posts total. I AM the newbie on about three message boards I frequent right now, and I ask dumb questions sometimes. People do say, "there's a search function but in my experience," and still answer the question, and say "welcome aboard." Because they are happy to see their group getting larger. You also have to mix in the fact that we're dealing with men, often, who have been sent mixed messages by porn. They might have come over from the personals side for 2 hours reading a lot of smut, and even the ads on this site have a tone, and if they did not LURK for hours or days, they might fall flat on their face. And granted, yes, some of them are unsalvageable, and many are just trolling for a reaction anyway. But my greater concern is how it all looks to the people lurking who don't post now anyway as a result. It also doesn't help that most threads rather quickly dissolve into inside jokes or banter between people who know each other, rather than staying on topic. That's been on the overall decline for years but now seems almost more prevalent than actual real discussion. I'm going to do something "less than ideal" again: BRAVO !!!!!

DaddySatyr -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/24/2013 4:11:52 PM)
In all fairness to wannapleez *and* my buddy crazyml: Better examples could probably be given if some of the threads in question hadn't violated ToS so horribly and been pulled. It is a shame that one of the "epithets" that gets thrown around here is something along the lines of: "Your idiotic post is going to be here forever for all the people you're interested in to go back and read" and yet, some of the biggest examples of people being asshats don't pass muster as far as ToS and get pulled. That there's a tendency for newbies to get lambasted if they don't immediately fit right in is undeniable if you even ask some of the newer posters we have, right now, you'll hear tales of: "I didn't want to post right away because I saw some people getting beat up and I wanted to make suyre it didn't happen to me". I know of at least one person (personally) to whom this applies who lurked on these boards for *years* and didn't post out of fear of that very thing. It's okay, now, they've been officially installed into the CCC so, all went well. Some months ago, there was an edict that came down from Alpha that there needed to be a lot less snark in the "introduce yourself" section because, obviously, chewing up newbies had become something of a problem. Of course, the snark has toned down some but, I wouldn't call some of the attitude that still remains all that welcoming. On the other hand, being snarky is human nature, to a degree and there is frequently an element of "I was "hazed' when I arrived so they'll just have to deal with it." It's a pity but it's true. I've said it before and I'll say it, again; There are some, here, that would seem to need to silence anyone that doesn't agree with the majority and that would be a detriment to us all. It's only through difference of opinion that we are going to learn anything ... unless there really is only one twue way? Peace and comfort, Michael

NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/24/2013 4:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Show of hands -- who here actually reads the ToS As a matter of fact, I do read the ToS before I join a site. If you don't and, consequently, you don't know the rules well, then, that's your problem and you have no one to blame but yourself. You can't expect any of us to feel sorry for you and tell you what you should already know, had you read the ToS in the first place like you were supposed to. NBMG

Kaliko -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/24/2013 4:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NiceButMeanGirl quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Show of hands -- who here actually reads the ToS As a matter of fact, I do read the ToS before I join a site. If you don't and, consequently, you don't know the rules well, then, that's your problem and you have no one to blame but yourself. You can't expect any of us to feel sorry for you and tell you what you should already know, had you read the ToS in the first place like you were supposed to. NBMG I don't believe I've ever read a single TOS for any website I've ever been on when I first signed up. And many people don't, I would guess. You can blame people for not reading the TOS, or you can accept that there is so much fine print shit out there that we are all sick and tired of being responsible for reading every nook and cranny of every rule book of every website we will ever participate in. That's why, if we're going to bitch about newcomers (and regulars) not following the rules, we should make them pass a test to gain entry. A fun, BDSM themed, tongue-in-cheek test that will highlight the important stuff - such as "You will get eaten alive if you don't read the Terms of Service - go do that here."

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/24/2013 6:02:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez OMG! How many times do I have to say that it was not really a specific example before you stop telling me that is is not really a specific example? No need to continue saying it. I just wish you could have brought forth at least an example that was closer to your original. quote: People did not respond to it. People over-reacted to it. Especially stupid was when one person had (what I guess was assumed to be) a clever line and then others had to repeat it. Regardless, after the 435th person shit on the guy, there was no real reason for the 436th person to drop trou. You do realize how ironic the particular euphemism of dropping trou is in this particular instance? quote: Well, thank you for clearing up the fact that it wasn't silly over-generalization, but rather bullshit omniscience. I don't know if you can really argue the evidence that is in that particular case. We could go in circles forever with My claim that the guy just wanted to talk about his small dick and you could claim otherwise. Societal norms say that isn't the most polite topic to begin a conversation. If you can not see that point, we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes good manners. quote: I had every expectation that you had read the requisite stuff. Based on what I have seen, that (and the other things you cite here) fits your nature. (Both of those statements are genuine praise.) And that's why I said "I imagine many did". I didn't think they were otherwise than a simple observation. I absolutely am an authority dynamics type of person who leans heavily on protocol and structure. Saying I'm rather strict in My opinion of rules and such is like saying I breathe in and out. quote: I think this statement is a little idealistic, but let's roll with it to the n-th degree and assume that someone who hasn't read the TOS and FAQ and employed the Search feature is an irresponsible member of the community and needs to be called out. So why is it wrong to call out another irresponsible member of the community when they treat other members of the community poorly? Just because person A is an asshole, does not give person B carte blanche to be an asshole to person A. Both are irresponsible members of the community, and both need to be called out. What you are calling an asshole, other members here would be calling not tolerating behavior that is outside what is permitted here. Telling a person that the forum participants do not want to see his dick as an avatar is within the confines of what is allowed. You can't have it both ways on that one. You don't get to say, "aw, poor new dude didn't read the ToS" and at the same time say that nobody should tell him where he's screwing up. To put it in the real life sense, being an asshole isn't going to be an offense where a person could get a ticket from the police force. Public nudity, however, most certainly will.

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/24/2013 6:10:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Some months ago, there was an edict that came down from Alpha that there needed to be a lot less snark in the "introduce yourself" section because, obviously, chewing up newbies had become something of a problem. Of course, the snark has toned down some but, I wouldn't call some of the attitude that still remains all that welcoming. Peace and comfort, Michael You might want to check your reference on that one. [:D]

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/24/2013 7:56:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Show of hands -- who here actually reads the ToS I read it. I admit I misinterpreted part of it and it cost me a profile on the other side. Once I realized why. Well no more issue. In-fact I have gone to the mods and said, "Hey, I'm not sure if this against the TOS to post." I got clarification. Ignorance is no excuse. I also make myself VERY familiar with dungeon rules and DM rules every single time I go to an event. I also make sure when I host events or sessions that people READ and understand my rules. Because I will hold you to them.

NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/24/2013 8:50:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko You can blame people for not reading the TOS, or you can accept that there is so much fine print shit out there that we are all sick and tired of being responsible for reading every nook and cranny of every rule book of every website we will ever participate in. I do blame people for not reading the TOS. Yeah, I agree, there is a lot of "fine print shit out there" and, yeah, sometimes I'm sick and tired of reading it too. But I do it anyway. It's no one's fault but your own if you don't read it and, consequently, you don't know the rules. See, I do read "every nook and cranny of every rule book of every website" I participate in. That way, I don't have to ask fucking lame ass questions that would have been answered by reading the TOS of the sites. I have no intention of coddling people who can't bother to take the time to read the rules or use the search function. If I can do it, I'm thinking pretty much anyone can do it....IF they WANT to. If they don't do either, then I don't feel in the least bit sorry for them. I guess now there's no question that NiceButMeanGirl actually can be Mean. NBMG

DaddySatyr -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/25/2013 5:13:54 AM)
There is merit to both sides of the "read the ToS" discussion but there's another facet based upon the original discussion ... Aren't the "veterans" also beholden to the ToS and isn't their snarky behavior that chews up some newbies a violation? I would think it is. Why should people that have been around a while get more leeway than newbs? The only answer I can fathom brings us back to card-carrying status in the CCC. I'm really interested in the answer to: "Who is more responsible for following the rules?" Peace and comfort, Michael

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/25/2013 9:27:23 AM)
Snark isn't a ToS violation.

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/25/2013 9:51:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Aren't the "veterans" also beholden to the ToS and isn't their snarky behavior that chews up some newbies a violation? I would think it is. Being snarky isn't a TOS violation. Being a smart ass isn't a TOS violation. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Why should people that have been around a while get more leeway than newbs? I have often in the past said, that there was a group that were like sharks. However, I don't know if they got more leeway than newbies. I saw their posts go poof just as often. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I'm really interested in the answer to: "Who is more responsible for following the rules?" Both are equally responsible.

IntSparked -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/25/2013 11:10:53 AM)
Communities like this simply -don't- grow as they should if the more experienced members are not welcoming. Imagine how many forum participants you'd have here if you (as in a general use of "you") were more civil to newcomers. Personally, I haven't had much of a problem. But, I also haven't posted much at all. The reason I haven't been more active here is because I do a lot of reading different threads. I've seen the reactions some get here. Therefore, if I have questions, I just do google searches until I find the answers. That in itself is sad considering the fact that this is a kink community. This should be one of the main places people new to the lifestyle come to ask their questions. If you want your community to grow and want outsiders to be more tolerant of your lifestyles, you need to be willing to tolerate discussions, even if the topic has been discussed to death. I know I'm not going to search back through years' worth of threads to find answers to my questions. Besides, various viewpoints come from a variety of posters. Who's to say that someone new won't offer a refreshing opinion on a subject? In short, lighten up and welcome fresh members who might grow to become valued members here. Otherwise, you'll only recycle old members and their opinions. Things turn stale without fresh faces and discussion. Arg, this wasn't in response to anyone in particular. Fast reply does that, it seems.

NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/25/2013 4:00:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Aren't the "veterans" also beholden to the ToS and isn't their snarky behavior that chews up some newbies a violation? ......... I'm really interested in the answer to: "Who is more responsible for following the rules?" Of course the "veterans" are equally beholden to the ToS. However, I've read the entire ToS, multiple times actually, and there is no mention in it of snarky behavior being a violation. Also, if the newbies would read the ToS like they're supposed to & follow them, I'm sure there would be less snarky behavior about people not doing so. Same goes for using the Search function, using it would lessen the snark about not using it. See how easy that is? Easy peasy. NBMG ETA: I got my share of snark when I was a newbie too. I paid my dues, just like everyone else. But I lived through it and learned to use the Search function. The ToS weren't an issue with me because I already read those.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/25/2013 4:07:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez (Based on my observations from this forum. While this has happened to me once, I see it happening to a lot of people. It's the latter that inspires this post.) If you're a male newbie and you ask a newbie-type question here, put on a seat belt and a cup before you click OK. For every piece of useful advice you get, you will also receive 5-10 responses crapping on you. These will come from a variety of sources: * The guy who has been here two weeks longer than you, and therefore considers himself an expert, and considers you a dumbass * The man-hater who thinks that any man asking any question is just using an excuse to sexually exploit her * The woman who thinks that being a Domme and being a bitch are synonymous * The person who gets frustrated with the newbie because his issue was addressed in a thread a mere 5 years ago * The wannabe that doesn't fit any of those categories, but tags along to crap on you too Good BDSM advice can be found here. But to find it, you have to wade through a lot of shit from people who just need to get laid. I concur, well said and please disregard all comments from chics who explain to you that you have shit for brains. You actually may (have shit for brains) but there's a far bigger math problem you may have chosen to obfuscate. You happen to be correct, now....allow me to 'splain one additional item.... You're a guy and I couldn't give a shit how many people 'splain to you that the number of wimmens to mens is (largely) equal. You're a male sub...looking for a female Domme. Allow me to explain the math herein: You lose. You can buy a new calculator every day if you like....you still lose. Math is not a subjective device...it's arbitrary and...in this venue...again (I'm thinking I've covered this somewhat well)... You lose. Now, if you suddenly became a hot chic....you win.....Sub or Domme....chics own...and (see above) you lose. Any questions? If you have any questions regards the above....you lose. (I hope that was immeasurably clear).

NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/25/2013 4:15:51 PM)
LookieNoNookie, you're hilarious!!!! [sm=rofl.gif] NBMG

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/27/2013 1:41:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact You do realize how ironic the particular euphemism of dropping trou is in this particular instance? Well, I don't think that "ironic" is the word we're looking for, Alanis, but is a very funny slip on my part. Good catch. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I don't know if you can really argue the evidence that is in that particular case. We could go in circles forever with My claim that the guy just wanted to talk about his small dick and you could claim otherwise. You're either missing or obfuscating my point. There are no circles to be gone in. You made a definitive statement about someone else's intentions. No "probably". No "every other time I've seen this, it's been for this reason". Nothing even approximating that. You stated -- let's be honest -- "I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, why you did this." That's a claim to omniscience, and it's bullshit. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Societal norms say that isn't the most polite topic to begin a conversation. If you can not see that point, we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes good manners. Nowhere -- and by nowhere, I mean nowhere -- did I state or even imply that his behavior was even close to acceptable. So there's no point to be disagreed upon here. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Saying I'm rather strict in My opinion of rules and such is like saying I breathe in and out. Yet another example of "I said no such thing". Why are you knocking down so many strawmen? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact What you are calling an asshole, other members here would be calling not tolerating behavior that is outside what is permitted here. It is truly terrifying that you would read what I wrote and draw from it that I was in any way calling assholes people who simply don't tolerate improper behavior.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/27/2013 1:55:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Snark isn't a ToS violation. And therefore, it's perfectly acceptable. Any behavior not specifically banned by the ToS is fair game. Sigh.

InsaneSerenity -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/27/2013 8:43:00 PM)
so you're complaining about an internet forum acting like every other internet forum ever created, which mimics every single real life dynamic ever seen. And you wonder why people don't get what you are saying? One more piece of advice, if you are arguing against LadyPact, there is a good chance you are simply wrong. another thing, go read what LookieNoNookie wrote. Every time you feel like espousing what you are in this thread, reread it. On the TOS though, i haven't read it, but i am 99% sure it mostly says,"act like a considerate decent human being,' in such terms that the authors of the board think everyone likely to visit the board will be able to understand.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/27/2013 11:09:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InsaneSerenity so you're complaining .... No, actually, I'm not. quote: ORIGINAL: InsaneSerenity And you wonder why people don't get what you are saying? No, actually, I'm not. quote: ORIGINAL: InsaneSerenity if you are arguing against LadyPact No, actually, I'm not. quote: ORIGINAL: InsaneSerenity On the TOS though, i haven't read it, but i am 99% sure it mostly says,"act like a considerate decent human being,' Oh, so you do agree that people ought to civil. Well, that's a relief. Welcome to my viewpoint.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625