according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 2:29:59 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

OK, honest question -- though with a little smartassery, because hey, it's me.

I have seen many accusations of violations of the ToS -- may its name ever be holy -- and/or Forum Guidelines -- genuflect when you say that. The most common accusation is that it's a violation of one or the other (the accusers can't seem to come to a consensus on which) to post to a thread that hasn't had a comment in over three months.

Now most of the time when this "violation" occurs, it's on a thread that hasn't had a comment in over a year. The "violator" gets scolded a little (with an alleged quotation from the sacred scriptures) and then the admin immediately closes the thread. This got me to wondering why the admins don't proactively close a thread when it gets too old. Now I'm not saying that they need to do this on the 91st day; but like I said, most of the "violations" happen on much deader threads.

So I thought, let me go read over these Forum Guidelines and ToS and see if my answer is there -- do my due diligence and give everyone a fair shake before voicing my question. Thankfully, an admin had posted the link to the Forum Guidelines so it was very obvious where they were.

I read the Forum Guidelines twice and saw no mention of this "three month rule". There's a link there to the ToS - I didn't read the whole thing again, but I scanned it all, and also did a search for the terms "month" and "day" to see if it popped up. Nada.

So is this "three month rule" just something of oral tradition that's been passed down from generation to generation, but never really existed? Or do I need to go see an eye doctor?

Post #: 1

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 2:48:05 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

The rules have been and will be applied very haphazardly so, just tread lightly and try to enjoy the rest of what's on order.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to wannapleez)

Post #: 2

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 2:49:53 PM

SlightlyScared

Posts: 24
Joined: 2/25/2013
From: The Middle bit of the UK
Status: offline

Hello wannapleez, you may find this link relevant to your interests, particularly the second paragraph in the Etiquette section.

I know its mentioned very briefly, almost in passing but surely the FAQ is a good place to start when you join a forum? I personally like to have a little look so I don't ask Qs that come up a lot and encourage the frustrated responses of the locals/regulars.

As for resuscitating 3 month old threads, if the original poster hasn't received an adequate response in that time surely they would have kept the thread alive? If you don't find the responses adequate surely it's easier to rephrase your question in a way that's more likely to get you a good answer?

Hope this eases your frustration a little
SS

(in reply to wannapleez)

Post #: 3

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 2:54:34 PM

VideoAdminRho

Posts: 2055
Joined: 3/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wannapleez
This got me to wondering why the admins don't proactively close a thread when it gets too old.

Because the admins are volunteers, who do this in their spare time.

The three month rule is an informal guideline and it comes from the top.

(in reply to wannapleez)

Post #: 4

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:07:05 PM

Rawni

Posts: 1175
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

The rules have been and will be applied very haphazardly so, just tread lightly and try to enjoy the rest of what's on order.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

Haphazardly?

Like they hunt you down and skin you? Horrific things will happen to you if you break a rule, known or unknown?

Let's call this like it really is. You may get some people saying shame on you and maybe it is a shame on them, but bottom line, a mod closes the thread and no one gets into serious trouble, slaughter at the mod alter or anything else. At most, if someone deliberately comes in and hunts down threads from 2005 and opens a bunch of them, I would assume they know that rule and have an agenda. Then, they might get a note from a mod, but they live, they breath, they are able to post another day.

You have every right to have your own agenda I guess or even attitudes, but lets call this what it is or seems to be. An attempt to swipe at the mods or site, by way of possible intimidation or indication that something very awful will happen if one doesn't tread lightly.

Bull Shit.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 5

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:19:56 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlightlyScared
Hello wannapleez, you may find this link relevant to your interests, particularly the second paragraph in the Etiquette section.

Ah, so resuscitating an old thread isn't a violation of the ToS -- I always figured that those who cited this rule did so in an over-the-top manner (hence my original smartassery), but I didn't realize that they were actually full of shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlightlyScared
As for resuscitating 3 month old threads, if the original poster hasn't received an adequate response in that time surely they would have kept the thread alive? If you don't find the responses adequate surely it's easier to rephrase your question in a way that's more likely to get you a good answer?

You have presented a bit of a false dichotomy there. Not all of the threads are a simple one question and one answer thing. Many threads engender a lot of discussion, some of which may not even be germane to the original topic. So resuscitating a necro-thread may not be an issue of anyone not yet getting a sufficient answer, but rather simply joining in the conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlightlyScared
Hope this eases your frustration a little

Not frustrated at all. Just asking a question. But thanks for the good help -- especially the link. You'd never cut it as one of the bozos that I was referring to. They just bitch at you that you're bad and expect you to bend over and take it.

(in reply to SlightlyScared)

Post #: 6

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:24:30 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho
Because the admins are volunteers, who do this in their spare time.

I figured that it was something like that, and that's why I went to go research it myself. The puzzling thing about all of this (that made me doubt the "busyness/volunteer" theory) was the fact that you folks are so very on top of it when someone revives a necro-thread. Do the accusers go tattle to you that it's been done? Or do you just have an alert set up for whenever one of them trots out the "violation of the ToS" bullshit lie?

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho
The three month rule is an informal guideline ...

I think I just found my new sig line.

(in reply to VideoAdminRho)

Post #: 7

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:33:24 PM

VideoAdminRho

Posts: 2055
Joined: 3/24/2010
Status: offline

When someone reports a thread it creates a ticket. Or sometimes it's just coincidence that we happen to see it go by on the scroller.

(in reply to wannapleez)

Post #: 8

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:34:34 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

Look, considering the mods are doing this without pay, periodic bouts of criticisms by the users, just be glad they try to do the best job they can. We cannot exactly expect them to give up their lives, loved ones, partners, slaves or doms now can we.

Well we could, but that would not be realistic.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to wannapleez)

Post #: 9

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:36:39 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rawni

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

The rules have been and will be applied very haphazardly so, just tread lightly and try to enjoy the rest of what's on order.

Haphazardly?

Like they hunt you down and skin you? Horrific things will happen to you if you break a rule, known or unknown?

Let's call this like it really is. You may get some people saying shame on you and maybe it is a shame on them, but bottom line, a mod closes the thread and no one gets into serious trouble, slaughter at the mod alter or anything else. At most, if someone deliberately comes in and hunts down threads from 2005 and opens a bunch of them, I would assume they know that rule and have an agenda. Then, they might get a note from a mod, but they live, they breath, they are able to post another day.

You have every right to have your own agenda I guess or even attitudes, but lets call this what it is or seems to be. An attempt to swipe at the mods or site, by way of possible intimidation or indication that something very awful will happen if one doesn't tread lightly.

Bull Shit.

I would say that I've never seen application of the rules being haphazard, but reference to the rules is beyond haphazard. And if you don't "tread lightly", the self-appointed Nazis who think they run this site (as opposed to the admins who actually do) will rip you a new one.

So the admonition to "tread lightly" is anything but bullshit.

(in reply to Rawni)

Post #: 10

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:37:00 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

Glad I saved this during the moving of the thread......

Excellent work on the link, SS!

OP, let Me see if I can make you understand part of the issue. The site has been in existence for ten years. While you may not think there is much forum traffic now, if you start thinking about what a monstrous task it would be for the VOLUNTEER staff to have to go back through the search feature, and find ten years worth of threads to close, you might realize what a gigantic task this would be. This would take months to complete, even if a part of the unpaid staff agreed to do that and nothing else.

In the meantime, the rest of the site and the current activity would suffer. We just got two new Mods. They are just barely getting started. Even with that, there is already more work around this joint than hands to do it.

Don't you think it's more practical for the person joining the site to actually READ what they are signing up for and what they agreeing to when it comes to the terms? An hour or two for the individual member, rather than months spent on the original closing on ten years worth of threads, plus upkeep that would never stop.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 11

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:39:57 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rawni
Haphazardly?

~~Like they hunt you down and skin you? Horrific things will happen to you if you break a rule, known or unknown?~~

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rawni

Let's call this like it really is.

Yes! Let's do that!

Haphazard

quote:

ADJECTIVE:

Dependent upon or characterized by mere chance. See Synonyms at chance.

NOUN:

Mere chance; fortuity.

ADVERB:

By chance; casually.

Now that we've shown your mis-characterization of my words to be totally your construct, perhaps we can discuss the issue if you like on a more even playing field (me, understanding what I said and you, now on the same page)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rawni

You may get some people saying shame on you and maybe it is a shame on them, but bottom line, a mod closes the thread and no one gets into serious trouble, slaughter at the mod alter or anything else. At most, if someone deliberately comes in and hunts down threads from 2005 and opens a bunch of them, I would assume they know that rule and have an agenda. Then, they might get a note from a mod, but they live, they breath, they are able to post another day.

Oooops! Sorry. Most of that drivel was based upon your original misunderstanding. I never suggested any of this tripe that you're spewing. My post was one fucking sentence.

We'll get back on track, now

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rawni

You have every right to have your own agenda I guess or even attitudes, but lets call this what it is or seems to be. An attempt to swipe at the mods or site, by way of possible intimidation or indication that something very awful will happen if one doesn't tread lightly.

Bull Shit.

Thank you for giving your consent to my right but no, it was an attempt to give someone who was asking a question the "lay of the land" from a person who's been around here for a few days.

Oh. Before I forget: welcome to our new moderator!

Peace and comfort,

Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 5/13/2013 3:51:04 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Rawni)

Post #: 12

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:44:34 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho

When someone reports a thread it creates a ticket. Or sometimes it's just coincidence that we happen to see it go by on the scroller.

So sometimes it's tattling, and sometimes it's just coincidence. So why aren't the tattlers made admins? They clearly have way too much time on their hands. Seems like it would take the burden off you guys.

In all seriousness, though, without naming names, there are a couple of people who are the ones who most often say "it is a violation of the ToS...." Then the admin comes along, may comment further, and then closes the thread. Is there a particular reason that the tattler isn't "pulled aside" privately and told, "um, no, actually it isn't a violation of the ToS; it's just an informal guideline"? Seems that lying about the ToS would be a violation of the ToS.

(in reply to VideoAdminRho)

Post #: 13

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:53:47 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Yes! Let's do that!

Haphazard

quote:

ADJECTIVE:

Dependent upon or characterized by mere chance. See Synonyms at chance.

NOUN:

Mere chance; fortuity.

ADVERB:

By chance; casually.

Oh. Before I forget: welcome to our new moderator!

Peace and comfort,

Michael

Well, since I agree with your definition, but not your application, maybe I can give it a try..........

There are two instances were folks are allowed to resurrect an old thread that I am aware of.

1. If they are the original poster and are putting an update on the thread to tell people how their situation turned out. People don't do it often but it does happen. While a few names are coming to My head that have done so in the past, I believe slaveluci is the only person currently posting who has done so. Other posters have done it as well, but I don't think they are current members.

2. The "tap, tap, tap" thread. It is resurrected every year on Ron's birthday and there is specifically a disclaimer at the top asking folks *not* to post on it.

Now, to fulfill your definition of haphazardly, you would have to show where some necro threads are closed that don't fit those categories, while others are not. Threads that are current, like the "I admit" thread, that have been continually posted on, aren't necro threads.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 14

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:56:37 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Glad I saved this during the moving of the thread......

I'm going to assume from this statement that you moved the thread. Thank you for doing so. I wasn't sure where to put it, so I just put it in the forum on which the "violation of the ToS" lie was most often told.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Don't you think it's more practical for the person joining the site to actually READ what they are signing up for and what they agreeing to when it comes to the terms? An hour or two for the individual member, rather than months spent on the original closing on ten years worth of threads, plus upkeep that would never stop.

Yes, I do. Now I have a question in return. Don't you think it's more practical for the person jumping down my throat to actually READ what I wrote rather than writing up a multi-paragraph screed in over-reaction to something I never said?

You are the one that taught me to do due diligence. And I did that (as I noted in the post). Having not found my answer, I then merely asked a question. I didn't accuse anyone of not doing their jobs. I even then went on further to clarify that I figured that the reason that the admin (calmly) gave was the reason for it, but also cited why I was unsure.

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 15

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 3:59:32 PM

LafayetteLady

Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wannapleez

You have presented a bit of a false dichotomy there. Not all of the threads are a simple one question and one answer thing. Many threads engender a lot of discussion, some of which may not even be germane to the original topic. So resuscitating a necro-thread may not be an issue of anyone not yet getting a sufficient answer, but rather simply joining in the conversation.

And if no one has posted to the thread in 3 months or more the conversation is obviously over.

(in reply to wannapleez)

Post #: 16

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 4:09:05 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: wannapleez

You have presented a bit of a false dichotomy there. Not all of the threads are a simple one question and one answer thing. Many threads engender a lot of discussion, some of which may not even be germane to the original topic. So resuscitating a necro-thread may not be an issue of anyone not yet getting a sufficient answer, but rather simply joining in the conversation.

And if no one has posted to the thread in 3 months or more the conversation is obviously over.

Says who? I have no beef with the "3 month informal guideline" here, but every other forum in which I have participated has no such guideline and no one (except a few people with sticks way up there) cares when an older topic is resurrected. In fact, it's often welcomed -- someone with a fresh perspective adding their USD0.02 to the issue.

So are you saying that they are all "obviously" wrong?

(in reply to LafayetteLady)

Post #: 17

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 4:10:29 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wannapleez
I'm going to assume from this statement that you moved the thread. Thank you for doing so. I wasn't sure where to put it, so I just put it in the forum on which the "violation of the ToS" lie was most often told.

Nope. I didn't move the thread. I started writing My reply when this was still posted in Ask A Sub. By the time that I had finished, the Mods were in the process of moving it.

That means when I hit the OK button to submit the post, I got the frame that said, "the thread you are responding to can not receive new replies". That frame also gives you two options. Go back or continue to the forums. If you hit the go back button, it will take you back to the thread so you can save what you've typed. The post was just in the wrong section, so it was only a matter of time that the Mods put it where it belonged and I just pasted My reply here.

quote:

Yes, I do. Now I have a question in return. Don't you think it's more practical for the person jumping down my throat to actually READ what I wrote rather than writing up a multi-paragraph screed in over-reaction to something I never said?

You are the one that taught me to do due diligence. And I did that (as I noted in the post). Having not found my answer, I then merely asked a question. I didn't accuse anyone of not doing their jobs. I even then went on further to clarify that I figured that the reason that the admin (calmly) gave was the reason for it, but also cited why I was unsure.

Oh good. I taught you something.

Before I can answer your other question, would you like to show Me the part of My response that you felt was an over-reaction?

< Message edited by LadyPact -- 5/13/2013 4:11:06 PM >

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to wannapleez)

Post #: 18

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 4:58:58 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Nope. I didn't move the thread. I started writing My reply when this was still posted in Ask A Sub. By the time that I had finished, the Mods were in the process of moving it.

Ah. So you were saying that you were glad that you saved your response, which might have been lost during the move. That makes more sense in retrospect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Oh good. I taught you something.

Yes, you did. And as a champion of reading the various agreements and such, can I assume that in the future you will equally (or with even greater vigor) get onto those who lie about what's in the ToS? Because it's even more evident that they have never read it than that I have.

For that matter, why have you let this slide in the past? I mean, surely you have read the ToS and so you must have known that when people stated that things were in the ToS that aren't there, that they were lying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Before I can answer your other question, would you like to show Me the part of My response that you felt was an over-reaction?

I am torn between two responses, so I'll give both and you can pick the one you like more.

1. Your breathless and condescending history lesson, followed by a presentation of a ludicrous explanation of what would happen if what I never advocated was implemented.
2. No answer I give to that question would satisfy you. I might as well retract my question as it will never be answered.

< Message edited by wannapleez -- 5/13/2013 5:00:34 PM >

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 19

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines - 5/13/2013 5:40:41 PM

littlewonder

Posts: 15659
Status: offline

Is this really that important to you? I mean really. What is the big deal? Shrug your shoulders and move on.

_____________________________

Nothing has changed
Everything has changed

(in reply to wannapleez)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109