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 (1/28/2013 11:12:48 AM)
OK, case in (good) point: NBMG's response (post #3) in this thread. You can't get "newbier" than someone with 1 post (as of the time of this writing). He asked a question that (surely) has been asked 1000 times before. And yet, NBMG's response was to simply graciously point him to the FAQ for helpful information. She didn't even tell him that if he was a "responsible member of the community", that he would have already read it. :)

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/29/2013 3:31:38 PM)
OP, I find this entire thread hypocritical. Because you are fighting for people to be less snarky and rude yet yesterday you were snarky and rude.

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/29/2013 6:21:12 PM)
Agreed. For as much as the OP complained about only abiding within ToS, isn't it nice that it was taken advantage of to use someone's disability to be mean to another?

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/29/2013 6:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Agreed. For as much as the OP complained about only abiding within ToS, isn't it nice that it was taken advantage of to use someone's disability to be mean to another? LP he wasn't just snarky. His post was straight assholishness. Even if he didn't know about her disability. Especially since he was calling out other forum posters "improper behavior" and people not being "civil".

NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/29/2013 8:38:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez OK, case in (good) point: NBMG's response (post #3) in this thread. You can't get "newbier" than someone with 1 post (as of the time of this writing). He asked a question that (surely) has been asked 1000 times before. And yet, NBMG's response was to simply graciously point him to the FAQ for helpful information. She didn't even tell him that if he was a "responsible member of the community", that he would have already read it. :) OMG, now I'm gracious?? OMG, now people will think I'm.....NICE!!!!! hahahahaha NBMG

AthenaSurrenders -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/29/2013 10:48:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw OP, I find this entire thread hypocritical. Because you are fighting for people to be less snarky and rude yet yesterday you were snarky and rude. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Agreed. For as much as the OP complained about only abiding within ToS, isn't it nice that it was taken advantage of to use someone's disability to be mean to another? Did the post in question get edited after it was posted? Because I read the comment he made and I didn't interpret it as deliberately hurtful, nor did I think he was deliberately being mean about a disability. In fact, it seemed like a fairly mild comment about paragraphs with a compliment attached to it. While I have disagreed with the OP throughout most of this thread, and while I very much like and respect the other person involved, I can't not say something about this. It really seems to me that the OP here is getting a harder time than someone normally would for that type of comment. Hell, I'm sure I've told people before that using paragraphs will make their post easier to read, and I've never been accused of mocking someone with a disability. In fact, I'd be devastated if I wrote a comment and it was interpreted like this one was. It upset someone, and that's given us something to think about in the future. I don't think he intended to cause any upset; I'm sure he'll weigh in. I do think we're piling on though, and as such helping the OP's point instead of disproving it. Of course, perhaps the post said something much more hurtful to begin with and was edited?

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 5:20:02 AM)
Athena, As I said to me his post was assholishness not only because of what he wrote but because he was screaming and pointing fingers at how so many other posters were snarky, uncivil, unfriendly, and commenting simply for the sake of commenting. (these are all words HE used in this thread to describe other posters) You can't hold other's to one standard and not hold yourself to that same standard and not come across as anything but a hypocrite.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AthenaSurrenders Did the post in question get edited after it was posted? Because I read the comment he made and I didn't interpret it as deliberately hurtful, nor did I think he was deliberately being mean about a disability. In fact, it seemed like a fairly mild comment about paragraphs with a compliment attached to it. While I have disagreed with the OP throughout most of this thread, and while I very much like and respect the other person involved, I can't not say something about this. It really seems to me that the OP here is getting a harder time than someone normally would for that type of comment. Hell, I'm sure I've told people before that using paragraphs will make their post easier to read, and I've never been accused of mocking someone with a disability. In fact, I'd be devastated if I wrote a comment and it was interpreted like this one was. It upset someone, and that's given us something to think about in the future. I don't think he intended to cause any upset; I'm sure he'll weigh in. I do think we're piling on though, and as such helping the OP's point instead of disproving it. Of course, perhaps the post said something much more hurtful to begin with and was edited? Athena, thank you for not assuming the worst. (Hmmm, I sense a theme here.) It appears that the exchange to which this discussion refers has been excised (at least, I can't seem to find it) so I can't reference it directly, nor can I remember the name of the person to whom I responded. However, you surmised correctly -- no hurtfulness was intended whatsoever, nor did I edit the comment at any time. And as you note, the comment ended with a compliment, stating that the person to whom I was responding had shared some good thoughts. (And, IIRC, she had done so earlier, too.) As to the devastation that you cite (if you had been misinterpreted thusly), it does indeed disturb me greatly if I hurt the person to whom I was responding. And I would like to formally apologize to that person if I did so, even in the slightest bit. I was not aware of the disability to which several have referred. My intention was a light-hearted comment, which I never would have made had I known of your disability and/or any ties it might have to the lack of paragraph breaks in your comment. Had I known, the only part of my comment that would've been there was my praise of your thoughts. My ignorance of your disability is not a valid excuse for hurting you -- I only cite it as a reason for why I unintentionally did so (if I indeed did). I hope that you (the person to whom I responded) accept this apology, its sincerity, and its veracity. However, to be honest, I am not very concerned about whether others accept/believe it, as this particular issue was never about them -- they merely inserted themselves into it. I would certainly seek to correct any misinterpretation (especially for the benefit of any non-participating folks), but I can't get too worked up about anything beyond what occurs between me and you (on this issue).

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:22:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AthenaSurrenders I do think we're piling on though, and as such helping the OP's point instead of disproving it. While the piling on is a bit illustrative of my point, there is a far louder illustration here. Athena, because of your comment, I was able to surmise what I had allegedly done. Contrast that with the way that TheLilSquaw and LadyPact handled the situation. They called me an asshole, made vague references to the ToS (genuflect when you say that), and claimed that I used someone's disability to be mean. (More omniscient bullshit, it should be noted.) Before I got to your comment, I was waffling back and forth between worry (that I had potentially hurt someone) and utter confusion (as I thought, "WTF are they referring to?"). So I have to thank you for actually cluing me in as to the alleged offense. Frankly, I also have to thank TheLilSquaw and LadyPact for giving such a crystal clear illustration of my point (jump down the violator's throat, but do nothing to let him know what he did, let alone allow him to fix it), that I am now fully convinced that they must actually agree with me. After all, why would anyone strengthen an argument so much if they disagreed with it?

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:27:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Athena, because of your comment, I was able to surmise what I had allegedly done. Contrast that with the way that TheLilSquaw and LadyPact handled the situation. They called me an asshole, made vague references to the ToS (genuflect when you say that), and claimed that I used someone's disability to be mean. (More omniscient bullshit, it should be noted.) Before I got to your comment, I was waffling back and forth between worry (that I had potentially hurt someone) and utter confusion (as I thought, "WTF are they referring to?"). So I have to thank you for actually cluing me in as to the alleged offense. Frankly, I also have to thank TheLilSquaw and LadyPact for giving such a crystal clear illustration of my point (jump down the violator's throat, but do nothing to let him know what he did, let alone allow him to fix it), that I am now fully convinced that they must actually agree with me. After all, why would anyone strengthen an argument so much if they disagreed with it? I didn't call you an asshole. I called your post assholish and hypocritical. I NEVER attacked YOU but your post. There is actually a difference. I didn't even reference the TOS. Nor did I say you used someone's disability against them. In-fact I stated even if you didn't know about her disability because I'm sure you weren't aware.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:30:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw I didn't call you an asshole. You are correct. My apologies for the mis-statement. quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw I called your post assholish and hypocritical. You were incorrect. I'll be over here, holding my breath, waiting for an apology in return.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:32:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw I didn't even reference the TOS. Nor did I say you used someone's disability against them. In-fact I stated even if you didn't know about her disability because I'm sure you weren't aware. I did not say that both of you said everything that I cited. Between the two of you, you did. And the general tenor of the posts that you made were similar enough, that I felt it warranted pairing them together.

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:36:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw I didn't call you an asshole. You are correct. My apologies for the mis-statement. quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw I called your post assholish and hypocritical. You were incorrect. I'll be over here, holding my breath, waiting for an apology in return. I see your post as assholish. I see your post as hypocritical. I wont be apologizing because THAT is how I see your post and I explained already why I see it that way. But I will paste that here for you. ETA: The ONLY time LP referenced the TOS in her post regarding your post yesterday. Was because YOU have brought it up stating although other people's post didn't violate it didn't mean they weren't being snarky or rude. quote: As I said to me his post was assholishness not only because of what he wrote but because he was screaming and pointing fingers at how so many other posters were snarky, uncivil, unfriendly, and commenting simply for the sake of commenting. (these are all words HE used in this thread to describe other posters) You can't hold other's to one standard and not hold yourself to that same standard and not come across as anything but a hypocrite. ETA: You may not see your post yesterday as snarky or hypocritical but myself and others do. So just as YOU didn't intend it to be those things perhaps what you see as snarky posts don't see them that way either.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:42:27 PM)
Oh, OK, so if someone calls out folks being snarky, uncivil, or unfriendly, and then creates a post himself that is none of those, that's hypocritical. Thanks for clearing that up.

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:43:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Oh, OK, so if someone calls out folks being snarky, uncivil, or unfriendly, and then creates a post himself that is none of those, that's hypocritical. Thanks for clearing that up. I SEE your posts as that. Just as you see other posts as snarky. What one person sees as snark anothers sees as being playful and joking.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 2:48:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw I SEE your posts as that. Just as you see other posts as snarky. What one person sees as snark anothers sees as being playful and joking. Fair enough. Since the post is no longer there, if you can't answer the question, that's cool. But do you recall what about that particular post you saw as snarky, assholish, or any other negative words (knowing now that no knowledge was had nor malice intended)? Genuine question.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 3:00:34 PM)
So as I noted earlier, it appears that the exchange containing the alleged offense was removed. 1. If I'm wrong, would someone please tell me what post number it starts with? 2. Would I be correct in assuming that only a moderator would have the ability to remove posts like that? 3. Assuming yes for #2, is it SOP for a moderator to remove something that might be offensive, depending on how it is interpreted? I've got no problem with that, though it does seem like an aberration. It seems that most of the time, the other posters (rightly or wrongly) sufficiently chastise the alleged offender. 4. Assuming yes for #2, is it also SOP for the allegedly offending post to be removed with no alerting of the offender so that s/he can correct the issue (if needed), apologize (if needed), and avoid similar action in the future? This seems counter-intuitive if the goal is to achieve a better community (however you wish to define "better").

LadyPact -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 3:36:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AthenaSurrenders Did the post in question get edited after it was posted? Because I read the comment he made and I didn't interpret it as deliberately hurtful, nor did I think he was deliberately being mean about a disability. In fact, it seemed like a fairly mild comment about paragraphs with a compliment attached to it. While I have disagreed with the OP throughout most of this thread, and while I very much like and respect the other person involved, I can't not say something about this. It really seems to me that the OP here is getting a harder time than someone normally would for that type of comment. Hell, I'm sure I've told people before that using paragraphs will make their post easier to read, and I've never been accused of mocking someone with a disability. In fact, I'd be devastated if I wrote a comment and it was interpreted like this one was. It upset someone, and that's given us something to think about in the future. I don't think he intended to cause any upset; I'm sure he'll weigh in. I do think we're piling on though, and as such helping the OP's point instead of disproving it. Of course, perhaps the post said something much more hurtful to begin with and was edited? I went to the other thread and looked. The comment is still the way it was written if I recall correctly. I don't know if you've seen the other thread that references the situation. Having read that other thread and speaking with that person, it absolutely did make Me think this thread was hypocritical. I think there is a difference between trying to give a helpful suggestion on paragraphs making something easier to read and a crack about it is two different things. Knowing that you in particular have the patience of a saint in most cases, you tend to have a very good way of expressing such things. See, I really don't most of the time. I've got a really weird sense of humor that people often take the wrong way. Even on this thread when I made the reply about coming across as an authority type is like saying I breathe in and out was meant to be funny, but it didn't seem to be funny to the OP. That seems to be exactly what happened to the OP. He thought his comment was funny, but to the person with the disability who has to try harder than everybody else just to write a post, it was hurtful. You, I, or the OP may not have thought of it as such, but we're not the ones who have reason to be sensitive about it. We'll have to disagree about the term piling on. I'd have said what I said whether another poster got to it first or not.

TheLilSquaw -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 3:38:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw I SEE your posts as that. Just as you see other posts as snarky. What one person sees as snark anothers sees as being playful and joking. Fair enough. Since the post is no longer there, if you can't answer the question, that's cool. But do you recall what about that particular post you saw as snarky, assholish, or any other negative words (knowing now that no knowledge was had nor malice intended)? Genuine question. Sure, I thought this part of your post was snarky and assholish. "I'm gonna buy you a box of paragraph breaks for Christmas." As I said, what YOU or someone else may mean as a joke can easily be taken by other's as snark. quote: So as I noted earlier, it appears that the exchange containing the alleged offense was removed. 1. If I'm wrong, would someone please tell me what post number it starts with? 2. Would I be correct in assuming that only a moderator would have the ability to remove posts like that? 3. Assuming yes for #2, is it SOP for a moderator to remove something that might be offensive, depending on how it is interpreted? I've got no problem with that, though it does seem like an aberration. It seems that most of the time, the other posters (rightly or wrongly) sufficiently chastise the alleged offender. 4. Assuming yes for #2, is it also SOP for the allegedly offending post to be removed with no alerting of the offender so that s/he can correct the issue (if needed), apologize (if needed), and avoid similar action in the future? This seems counter-intuitive if the goal is to achieve a better community (however you wish to define "better"). The post wasn't removed. It is still there post 10. ETA: If the Mods remove a post because it violates the TOS I am almost positive you receive a gold letter explaining exactly why it was removed. I also know that they do not delete them so if you think it was done in error you can appeal it and it may be returned.

wannapleez -> RE: suggested addition to FAQ (1/30/2013 3:45:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw Sure, I thought this part of your post was snarky and assholish. "I'm gonna buy you a box of paragraph breaks for Christmas." As I said, what YOU or someone else may mean as a joke can easily be taken by other's as snark. Do you still see it as snarky and assholish, in light of what you know now? quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw The post wasn't removed. It is still there post 10. Did you perhaps make a typo on that number? Post 10 occured back on 1/21. This was more recent than that. Edited: oops -- never mind -- LadyPact let it slip that the issue was on another thread. Now I'll go figure out which one it was. quote: ORIGINAL: TheLilSquaw ETA: If the Mods remove a post because it violates the TOS I am almost positive you receive a gold letter explaining exactly why it was removed. I also know that they do not delete them so if you think it was done in error you can appeal it and it may be returned. Thanks, that answers the more general question.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625