RE: banned

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: banned

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Chatrooms >> RE: banned

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 4:39:53 AM

Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Causatum

And what happens when arbitrary decisions based on personal prejudices are taken by a bully?

Dude.... take note of what the moderator said in post#14: One thing a lot of people seem to not understand, especially within the IRC/chat culture: Both at the server level, and at the individual rooms level, you do not have any rights or freedoms that those in charge do not give you. They allow you in, because they want to, not because they have to. Think of it like someone allowing you in to their private home--They may do so, and they may ask and force you to leave at any time, for any reason, or even for no reason at all. They have that right; You do NOT have any right to demand fairness, "freedom of speech", or refuse to leave, etc.

The Mods of the room have the RIGHT to make and enforce arbitrary decisions whether you perceive it to be prejudiced or by a bully.
YOU have no rights whatsoever.
THEY have every right.
You got banned. Their word is final.
You have NO redress. Nothing else you can do.

What is there to not understand?????
Stop the bellyaching and get on with life.

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell, 1903-1950

(in reply to Causatum)

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 4:57:18 AM

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

Diffident he has the right to be heard. And the right to be re-heard.
I see nothing that warrants a ban let alone a lifetime one.

How does one moderate whatever site/room/forum - sure i have my ideas on how this should be done - have done in the past for many years moderated, not lately. But there are good moderators and there are bad moderators - shag all I can do about that I am afraid its been like that since the beginning of time everywhere.

if you wish to forward me everything verbatim, do so - minus everyone's usernames - but all i can give you is an impartial opinion there is nothing I can do for you and as I said OG was the best hope of having someone help you out here.

From what I have read you have my sympathy some people live on FB, social media, chatrooms, forums, etc and when you take that part away you infact isolating them from the-a world they live in.

it is my own personal preference to type exactly what I think sure i am wrong sometimes - not often though. To me its everyone's right to type exactly what they think...plenty of their stuff i do not like. When you deny anyone this right you have denied them the right to be a human-freedom.

< Message edited by WickedsDesire -- 1/17/2017 4:59:19 AM >

(in reply to Causatum)

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 5:17:38 AM

Posts: 40
Joined: 7/3/2016
Status: offline

~FR

Is making your own channel not an option?

_____________________________

Owned by ExiledTyrant

(in reply to WickedsDesire)

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 6:35:58 AM

Posts: 304
Joined: 7/24/2013
Status: offline

No it's not an option. Since the Lobby is the central entrance channel where you choose what other channel you might go to. If you're banned from the Lobby, you're banned from the entire chat system. Which therein lies the rub. Causatum was banned from the Lobby but in reality banned from the whole system. Which using Casteele's analogy of the Lobby being a house. It's like Caus was removed from the house but not allowed back into the entire neighborhood.

Edited to add:
Most of you responding are what I call board folk. I've personally never witnessed much compassion from any of you towards what I call the chat folk. So here's a question for you board folk. If any of you, who post frequently and feel at home here on the boards, were banned from ever using the boards again, would you still feel the decision to remove you was just and your complaint of the event just being you being butthurt and whiny?

< Message edited by ChrchofDrk -- 1/17/2017 6:53:34 AM >

(in reply to ExiledSlave)

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 11:46:25 AM

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

quote:

If you owned a bar, and one of your customers said the above to another patron, would you have found that acceptable?

Honestly? It wouldn't even register as worthy of note.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 11:49:01 AM

Posts: 14412
Joined: 7/1/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Causatum
un-named op will delete this thread as well as it is making him appear like a bully (not my words).

Chatroom Moderators other than Casteele don't have power in the forums. Just like the forum Moderators don't have power in the chatrooms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

I see nothing that warrants a ban let alone a lifetime one.

You have one side of the story and one interaction. I'm willing to bet there's way more to this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk

If any of you, who post frequently and feel at home here on the boards, were banned from ever using the boards again, would you still feel the decision to remove you was just and your complaint of the event just being you being butthurt and whiny?

I have been moderated in the past, I was aware that I had pushed the line and accepted it. I didn't bash the moderater, call them names, create posts about the moderator or argue with them.

I was perma banned by "She who must not be named" for being part of the old regime. I was a casualty of the power struggle. I wasn't surprised by the ban and knew that I was never going to be back as long as she was in charge of the site....so I went on with my life until she was gone.

_____________________________

Give a girl the right shoes and she will conquer the world. ~ Marilyn Monroe

The Accelerated Velocity of Terminological Inexactitude

(in reply to Causatum)

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 12:00:43 PM

Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

It doesn't matter a jot if a ban was justified or not.

You are allowed here (and/or the chat rooms) by the site owner's grace and goodwill.
It's their site and their rules and they decide who is allowed to stay.
Nobody has a "right" to use a site or any part of it.

If you get banned, you may be able to ask why.
What you can't do is make any demands.
If, in the process of stomping your little feet in a tantrum, start demanding your 'rights', you may find that you don't actually have any.

Personally, given OP's behaviour since that event (breaking ToS rules, naming and shaming, spamming the forums etc), I would ban him from the site completely.

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell, 1903-1950

(in reply to ChrchofDrk)

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 12:08:58 PM

Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

It doesn't matter a jot if a ban was justified or not.

You are allowed here (and/or the chat rooms) by the site owner's grace and goodwill.
It's their site and their rules and they decide who is allowed to stay.
Nobody has a "right" to use a site or any part of it.

True, as far as it goes, but:
Some of those who speak for the site owner have been known in the past to take a rather flexible approach to the tos agreement and what it entails. Quite possibly the OP is a moaning shitebag who needs to man up and stop whining like a bitch, but it's not inconceivable that he might have a genuine grievance.
(Of course, I say that as somebody else who fell foul of "she who must not be named"...)

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)

RE: banned - 1/17/2017 12:58:41 PM

Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

I agree, some Mods were a little lenient and gave some leeway.
And for most of us when we got a gold letter, we toned it down a tad until it all blew over.
And I too, was a victim of "she who shall not be named" for over 4 months.

But did we all go around spamming the forums about it?
Broke the ToS by naming and shaming (even when we knew who banned us)??
There weren't many who did that.
Whether we deserved it or not, most of us bided our time and got on with our lives.

And all this hoo-har over a chatroom... Really??
Is his life so shallow that he's utterly distraught over it?
One has to think what sort of life he leads to go to such lengths and behave like a 2yo having a paddy.

The majority of us have other/better things to do than worry about a chatroom.

I see this sort of victimhood whining on the Ebay forums too when someone gets banned or restricted.
Very rarely is the complainer completely innocent in the debacle.
I suspect there is more to this than what is being said here as it's only one side of the story.

The bottom line is, nobody has any "right" to use a site. It's really that simple.

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell, 1903-1950

(in reply to WhoreMods)

RE: banned - 1/18/2017 3:08:15 PM

Posts: 17
Joined: 4/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

And all this hoo-har over a chatroom... Really??
Is his life so shallow that he's utterly distraught over it?
One has to think what sort of life he leads to go to such lengths and behave like a 2 yo having a paddy.

In response to that kind analysis of my life, I actually do have a full and meaningful existence. I have also not been complaining so much about my "victimhood" and rather attempting to put a public spotlight on the actions of one who I believe has illustrated pompous disregard for the notions of fairness. As a man who went to law school, one whose sense of a correlation between consequence and action is almost genetically infused into my very being, I couldn't give two flying f*cks if I never return to chat...but I do care if I was banished under dubious or unfair circumstances.

I seek redress for actions I believe were unfounded. If a lifetime ban is the price I pay for eventual clarification of the how and why, I'll just move on.

< Message edited by Causatum -- 1/18/2017 3:09:09 PM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)

RE: banned - 1/18/2017 3:22:01 PM

Posts: 14412
Joined: 7/1/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Causatum

I seek redress for actions I believe were unfounded.

I'm sure they'll be happy to refund your membership fee.

_____________________________

Give a girl the right shoes and she will conquer the world. ~ Marilyn Monroe

The Accelerated Velocity of Terminological Inexactitude

(in reply to Causatum)

RE: banned - 1/18/2017 3:33:59 PM

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

There is no redress, as most people who have been warned or banned here over the years have found out.
Your best bet was discussing it privately with the mod in question, not in a general forum, at least one where the majority of posters dont even use the "chat"
you shot yourself in the foot there
we can do nothing, even if we wanted to butyou definitely arent gaining followers amongst anyone
you just sound butthurt...which is fine, it happens to all of us.
karma works...Mod 3 found that out...
legally? you dont have a leg to stand on.so stop kicking your own ass at the same time.
If this forum had moderators watching it and acting as they did 3 years ago, now, your post would have been gone, for several reasons...all against TOS

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Causatum)

RE: banned - 1/18/2017 3:37:15 PM

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

quote:

rather attempting to put a public spotlight on the actions of one who I believe has illustrated pompous disregard for the notions of fairness.

Too what end? your posts will not get the person removed. Your posts will not make anybody who is into the chatrooms avoid them.

quote:

As a man who went to law school

Ah, it all makes perfect sense now.

quote:

I seek redress for actions I believe were unfounded.

And you will not get any.

quote:

If a lifetime ban is the price I pay for eventual clarification of the how and why, I'll just move on.

And yet, here you are, not moving on.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Causatum)

RE: banned - 1/21/2017 2:11:23 AM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk
No it's not an option. Since the Lobby is the central entrance channel where you choose what other channel you might go to. If you're banned from the Lobby, you're banned from the entire chat system. Which therein lies the rub. Causatum was banned from the Lobby but in reality banned from the whole system. Which using Casteele's analogy of the Lobby being a house. It's like Caus was removed from the house but not allowed back into the entire neighborhood.

My apologies. It's been a busy week...

Very specifically, because of this thread, I went and looked into the guidelines from chat. It took me less than five minutes to find this:

quote:

Because everyone "auto-joins" this room when they sign on, we ask that you treat the Lobby as a general purpose room--It's not meant to be a place to engage in "scening" or "role play";

To me, this seems to be rather spelled out, and if the above exchange from the other poster happened in 'The Lobby,' he was very well aware that his conduct was not appropriate to the setting. Engaging in the role play of 'turning someone into a princess and f^cking her,' is not, in my opinion, what the guidelines set out for "The Lobby". No different than if I would have gone to my local play space, dragged an unwilling participant into the social area, and non-con-sensually engaged in my kink in an area that was not sanctioned for play. If I did that at my local club, I would expect the DM to bounce me out. Why is this different?

quote:

Edited to add:
Most of you responding are what I call board folk. I've personally never witnessed much compassion from any of you towards what I call the chat folk. So here's a question for you board folk. If any of you, who post frequently and feel at home here on the boards, were banned from ever using the boards again, would you still feel the decision to remove you was just and your complaint of the event just being you being butthurt and whiny?

You do realize how many of us were banned under "she who will not be named"?

PS. I probably have more 'chat folk' on my Christmas Card list than you do.

_____________________________

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 ChrchofDrk)

RE: banned - 1/21/2017 2:46:39 AM

Posts: 304
Joined: 7/24/2013
Status: offline

quote:

To me, this seems to be rather spelled out, and if the above exchange from the other poster happened in 'The Lobby,' he was very well aware that his conduct was not appropriate to the setting. Engaging in the role play of 'turning someone into a princess and f^cking her,' is not, in my opinion, what the guidelines set out for "The Lobby". No different than if I would have gone to my local play space, dragged an unwilling participant into the social area, and non-con-sensually engaged in my kink in an area that was not sanctioned for play. If I did that at my local club, I would expect the DM to bounce me out. Why is this different?

Because it wasn't role play. It was said in response as more a smartassed quip. I was there. I saw the exchange. I OP'ed for several years and in my opinion, it wasn't ban worthy in the slightest. But truly what I think matters little. The OP in question runs that room with an iron fist. When he says stop it's best to just stfu and stop. Which in this case Caus didn't do and he's paying the price for his indiscretion. Which he then went on to express his grievance in open channel. Which just added insult to injury. You simply don't win when opposing the superior force.

quote:

You do realize how many of us were banned under "she who will not be named"?

And look. You're still not over it. As it's still a point of contention *chuckles

quote:

PS. I probably have more 'chat folk' on my Christmas Card list than you do.

Quite likely you do. My point though was that compassion doesn't run too terribly deep here from what I have seen

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 1/21/2017 10:11:45 AM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk
Because it wasn't role play. It was said in response as more a smartassed quip. I was there. I saw the exchange. I OP'ed for several years and in my opinion, it wasn't ban worthy in the slightest. But truly what I think matters little. The OP in question runs that room with an iron fist. When he says stop it's best to just stfu and stop. Which in this case Caus didn't do and he's paying the price for his indiscretion. Which he then went on to express his grievance in open channel. Which just added insult to injury. You simply don't win when opposing the superior force.

You OP'ed? Originally Posted? I'm confused. How are you using the term "OP" rather than 'original poster' or 'original post'?

The rest, I'm confused again, but in a different way. If the chat folk know all of the above, why would anybody be surprised if they got booted when they crossed the line? I'm not doubting the iron fist thing. (Have to admit, considering the screen name of the Mod mentioned, that should have been the first clue. Killer screen name for a very strict Mod, btw.) While you and I seem to differ on whether the exchange crosses the line, its not our opinions that matter. The Mod in question seems to have thought it did, so there you go.

quote:

And look. You're still not over it. As it's still a point of contention *chuckles

I don't know how you are perceiving a one sentence answer as a point of contention, so we'll have to disagree again. You either wanted an honest answer or you didn't. I thought you had asked in the 'what if you were in that position' way, so I answered you. If it was a rhetorical question, you could have said so and I wouldn't have wasted the keystrokes.

quote:

Quite likely you do. My point though was that compassion doesn't run too terribly deep here from what I have seen

For something like this? Not so much. I wouldn't put it in the same category as, to use a hypothetical, the same way that I'd react if a Mod banned somebody with stage four cancer, or people who honestly volunteered a lot of their time working behind the scenes to make the joint a better place, who got stripped of their privileges because one particular person had it in for them. If it can't hit that kind of bar, it's not going to register that high on my injustice scale. It's just a matter of finding a new playground or waiting until Admins cycle again.

_____________________________

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 ChrchofDrk)

RE: banned - 1/21/2017 10:49:32 AM

Posts: 304
Joined: 7/24/2013
Status: offline

quote:

You OP'ed? Originally Posted? I'm confused. How are you using the term "OP" rather than 'original poster' or 'original post'?

Yes I was using OP as we in the chat use it to mean Moderator or Mod. Sorry for any confusion

quote:

I don't know how you are perceiving a one sentence answer as a point of contention

Because so many keep mentioning this individual and her unfairness. Thank you for answering the question though. It wasn't rhetorical

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 1/21/2017 11:24:22 AM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk
Yes I was using OP as we in the chat use it to mean Moderator or Mod. Sorry for any confusion

No problem. I was just trying to sort it out.

quote:

Because so many keep mentioning this individual and her unfairness. Thank you for answering the question though. It wasn't rhetorical

My pleasure. I'm sure others could do for a better answer.

Best of the day to you.

_____________________________

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 ChrchofDrk)

RE: banned - 1/21/2017 1:29:42 PM

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

FR
Ever notice how when somebody is bitching about being banned or moderated in some way, they always present it as being for the good of everybody else, some sort of warning or call to action for everybody's benefit?

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 1/21/2017 2:24:02 PM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
FR
Ever notice how when somebody is bitching about being banned or moderated in some way, they always present it as being for the good of everybody else, some sort of warning or call to action for everybody's benefit?

Did you happen to read M****_J****'s writing on the matter?

_____________________________

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 ThatDizzyChick)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Chatrooms >> RE: banned

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 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 © 2024

Terms of Service

0.180