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 - 1/21/2017 5:42:19 PM

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

I have read and assimilated everyone's point of view and although I do not always agree, I can intellectually see the points expressed. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank my un-named supporter in this discussion (mentioning names is apparently against the TOS...even if to compliment) and to offer this unsolicited advise: the un-named OP is both cruel and merciless against anyone who does not bow down to his wishes, edicts or opinions. Therefore, continuing to support me will most likely enrage him and encourage him to find some irrelevant reason to ban you as well, probably for life. Therefore, in your best interests, I suggest that you no longer make any remarks which allow the un-named OP to think that you agree with my opinion of his actions...and character..., least the repercussions prejudice you as well. Thank you for your support and I hope that one day I shall be able to say these words in open chat without being burnt at the stake for heresy.

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 1/22/2017 4:34:58 PM

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

Now that's some grade a USDA passive aggression. Go you.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Causatum)

RE: banned - 1/22/2017 5:08:06 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Now that's some grade a USDA passive aggression. Go you.

What? You didn't like the Jewish Mother style attempt at a guilt trip?

_____________________________

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

The Accelerated Velocity of Terminological Inexactitude

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)

RE: banned - 1/22/2017 7:33:10 PM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Causatum
I have read and assimilated everyone's point of view and although I do not always agree, I can intellectually see the points expressed.

Well, at least we've got that much going for us. Just my personal opinion, but I think a lot of people should look at ToS and all of the other support documents with the angle of understanding that these are site 'cover it's own @ss' communications. ToS has actually broadened over the years because of the screwed up things that some people have done, tried to do, or what have you.

quote:

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank my un-named supporter in this discussion (mentioning names is apparently against the TOS...even if to compliment) and to offer this unsolicited advise:

That's actually not correct. Since this thread is still going to be up, there's no reason to have misleading information on it.

If somebody is already on the thread, or you have their consent to mention them on a thread, you can use their screen name on a thread. There's an exception to this rule. That being if the person has asked you to leave them alone in some way, that request is supposed to carry.

What you can't do is stuff like add somebody's name to a thread that they aren't participating in. You're also not supposed to name people who have been former members of the site because they aren't here to reply to the comments. If you've noticed, several of us have used the phrase "she who shall not be named". We all know who it means, but we're staying within guidelines because we're not actually naming her. The forum Mods have let us do it in extreme circumstances, such as creating posts when a forum member has passed away, just as a common decency thing.

quote:

the un-named OP is both cruel and merciless against anyone who does not bow down to his wishes, edicts or opinions.

"Cruel" is a bit of a stretch. You've already said chat isn't your only social outlet. Shoot, you're interacting with people on the forums now and still have your account to email with any of the friends that you've made in chat.

Honestly, if it were me, I'd just join another site that has a chat feature. This really isn't the big deal you are making it out to be.

_____________________________

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 Causatum)

RE: banned - 1/23/2017 4:27:02 AM

Cell

Posts: 409
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: funz

who gives others the right to ban somene for telling the truth

Mate... if you managed to get banned from here you must be pretty hardcore... I didn't even think there were still moderators.

(in reply to funz)

RE: banned - 2/6/2017 2:49:45 PM

Posts: 655
Joined: 12/10/2011
From: Near Sacramento, California, USA
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.

CoD: While my analogy is imperfect, so is yours. If the chat server is my house, and I ban you from my living room for something, would you demand you still be allowed in my den, saying I have no right to deny you access to *any* of my property, *only* parts?

I often try to make something clear to people.. This site, and everything it offers, is private property. If you want public property, please, petition to government to pay all the costs associated with running the site, and then you can make a "public property" claim. Until then, you have no "right" or "entitlement" to be here, except under the terms of service which the site grants--and may even change at will, and/or allow the mods to make judgment calls on the operation of said services. Usage of this site is a privilege, and the costs are coming out of someone else's pocket. Like i see so many dom's say all the time, "My house, I pay the bills--Therefore, I make the rules." Yet I see so many people get all upset when they're on the shot end of that kind of thing. That's called hypocrisy, double standards, etc. You are the one in the wrong there, period.

_____________________________

--
[Insert all the standard disclaimers here: IMO, YMMV, etc etc]
And moo.

(in reply to ChrchofDrk)

RE: banned - 2/6/2017 3:04:03 PM

Posts: 655
Joined: 12/10/2011
From: Near Sacramento, California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Causatum

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.

Fair? As is often seen in the chatroom when someone cries "No fair!" when they don't *get their own way*.. "Fair? What is this strange word?"

All I see here is you're throwing a tantrum because you cannot get your way, and trying to create public outrage by using words like "fair" in hopes of misleading those who blindly "champion the underdog" to raise their pitchforks without bothering to look at all sides of the issue. I think your own treatment of this entire issue is "unfair" to the moderator in question, just trying to bash him and make him out to be a bad guy/monster to suit your singular purposes.. to do what you want, when and where and to whomever you want, regardless of what those in positions of authority have to say about it.

What's next? Will you attack another site member for not bowing down to be your slave just because you think it's only "fair" that they do so, because you're The One True Master? The mods have a job to protect the site from that kind of behavior. Not just the users/site members, but the site as a whole. Many of them do so as volunteers, they do not get paid. Rather, they do it because they're passionate about it, and try to act in ways that they feel are best for the site, as a whole. We're not looking out for just your interests, but trying to balance them against *everyone's*.

Ironically, your continued attacks are just reaffirming in my mind WHY you should be banned.. if you'll attack the mods like this, you won't blink an eye about attacking the regulars the same way. It's like you are looking for a fight with anyone you can. We won't allow that. It's really "that simple".

_____________________________

--
[Insert all the standard disclaimers here: IMO, YMMV, etc etc]
And moo.

(in reply to Causatum)

RE: banned - 2/10/2017 5:25:27 PM

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

quote:

CoD: While my analogy is imperfect, so is yours. If the chat server is my house, and I ban you from my living room for something, would you demand you still be allowed in my den, saying I have no right to deny you access to *any* of my property, *only* parts?

So you're saying the entire chat system is your house? That's not how I ever understood it to be. Each room had it's room owner. Yet you're saying you (and the other sys ops) are just letting them be squatters and you are the actual owners of the chat system? To the best of my knowledge that was never how it was meant to be. So what gives you the right?

quote:

"My house, I pay the bills--Therefore, I make the rules." Yet I see so many people get all upset when they're on the shot end of that kind of thing. That's called hypocrisy, double standards, etc. You are the one in the wrong there, period.

So you're saying the whole chat system is your house that you pay the bills of? .. That's laughable at best and you btw, are the one that's in the wrong here, period. You're not the owner. You're not even the caretaker. You're a volunteer op who has decided that tyranny is your best option. How quaint

< Message edited by ChrchofDrk -- 2/10/2017 5:29:50 PM >

(in reply to Casteele)

RE: banned - 2/11/2017 12:02:52 AM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk

quote:

CoD: While my analogy is imperfect, so is yours. If the chat server is my house, and I ban you from my living room for something, would you demand you still be allowed in my den, saying I have no right to deny you access to *any* of my property, *only* parts?

So you're saying the entire chat system is your house? That's not how I ever understood it to be. Each room had it's room owner. Yet you're saying you (and the other sys ops) are just letting them be squatters and you are the actual owners of the chat system? To the best of my knowledge that was never how it was meant to be. So what gives you the right?

For conversation's sake...

No matter your understanding, Casteele is right and it's exactly what every person who ever opened an account agreed to upon signing up. We're all squatters here.

Chat room "owners" don't actually 'own' anything. The entire space is borrowed. They are down in the list of hierarchy.

E owns the entire site. All of the intellectual property.

In owning this property, E has certain property managers. Kind of like real estate managers to a gated community.

Within that gated community, there are several bed and breakfasts. There are patrons to the establishments. Those running them (chat room supposed 'owners') really aren't anything but 'leasing' the space.

quote:

"My house, I pay the bills--Therefore, I make the rules." Yet I see so many people get all upset when they're on the shot end of that kind of thing. That's called hypocrisy, double standards, etc. You are the one in the wrong there, period.

quote:

So you're saying the whole chat system is your house that you pay the bills of? .. That's laughable at best and you btw, are the one that's in the wrong here, period. You're not the owner. You're not even the caretaker. You're a volunteer op who has decided that tyranny is your best option. How quaint

Doesn't matter if Casteele is directly paying the bills or not. If the person who *IS* paying the bills has entrusted him to run chat, that's how the hierarchy works.

_____________________________

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 - 2/11/2017 3:13:38 AM

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

So that means Casteele is a slum lord. Cool

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 2/11/2017 7:46:32 AM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk
So that means Casteele is a slum lord. Cool

If you consider CS a slum...

_____________________________

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 - 2/11/2017 12:20:21 PM

stef

Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

If you consider CS a slum...

Have you ever visited the chat rooms here? Calling them a slum would be an insult to slums.

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 2/12/2017 7:16:45 AM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

It's my understanding it's a lot like Chat Roulette was back in the day.

Am I close?

(Disclaimer: I do happen to know a few folks who frequent chat who give me the compete opposite impression.)

_____________________________

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 stef)

RE: banned - 2/12/2017 10:06:22 AM

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

Chat here is kind of weird. I've been involved with the chat here since 2007? It's evolved to what it is now. Which is kind of a shell of what it was. Much like CS. I enjoy instant feedback and conversation more than I do a forum such as this, the message boards. So it made more sense for me to be there than here. I miss the old days. But that's a common lament for anything that's passed. But it was run differently and more equally. Ah well, all things must pass

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 2/12/2017 11:31:05 AM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

On that part, we're probably closer to agreement. The forums seem to be a fair comparison to what you're saying about chat. I signed on in 2007 and there was so much more content then than there is now. There's not much on the forums these days that's related to actual kink. In my opinion, stef's got it nailed in her sig line. There have been more threads about fin kink or some other version of women wanting money in relation to kink in the last month than I'll bet there's been threads rope bondage in the entire year. I know you only dabble on the forums and prefer chat, but take a quick look at the General Discussion board. Does it look anything like the topics that were there when you first signed up?

Even though I don't participate in chat, I'd probably have to disagree that prior to now, it was run 'more equally' up until Casteele and his volunteers took the job. "She who shall not be named' had a chat Mod counterpart and complaints about her spilled into the forums somewhat frequently. More than it seemed there had been before what we on the forums affectionately call Mod-Gate.

_____________________________

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 - 2/12/2017 5:09:08 PM

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

In defense of Casteele. I've known Casteele for about 7 yrs. I like him. He's a good guy. Sure he abuses his power some times. But I did too when I was an Op (mod). On the whole he's a very fair individual. That being said. I will always give him shit. It's just how we get along. The problem doesn't really lie with Casteele. But if I say more, it may not go well for me. So I'll just leave it here .... and may I say LadyPact. I've always enjoyed your take on things. It's like seeing fair and balanced at it's best

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 2/12/2017 5:42:05 PM

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

As I've enjoyed the conversation with you.

I almost said much of the same in my last post. Can't say I've interacted with Casteele much. Just banter on the forums a while back. Seemed a nice enough guy for the most part, though I absolutely remember giving him sh^t about a subject or two.

All the best.

~P

_____________________________

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 - 2/13/2017 11:05:59 AM

Posts: 655
Joined: 12/10/2011
From: Near Sacramento, California, USA
Status: offline

People here give each other shit? *deer in headlights look* I've never noticed!

I tend to look at the whole site as kind of a dysfunctional family. We may disagree fight, and our personalities may clash, but for the most part, we try to work together for everyone's mutual benefit and enjoyment. Most people know where the line is, and quite a few get off on "toeing the line".. some even get off on crossing it now and then, intentionally. A few even own up and admit it, giving that shit-eating grin with their hand caught in the cookie jar..

It is what it is.

_____________________________

--
[Insert all the standard disclaimers here: IMO, YMMV, etc etc]
And moo.

(in reply to LadyPact)

RE: banned - 2/14/2017 7:30:24 PM

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

quote:

Most people know where the line is, and quite a few get off on "toeing the line".. some even get off on crossing it now and then, intentionally. A few even own up and admit it, giving that shit-eating grin with their hand caught in the cookie jar.

"Toeing the line" is a concept that only works when the line is firmly planted in one location and remains static for all. When a hypothetical OP who may happen to be egocentric, self absorbed, narcissistic and emotionally stunted elects to ban a chat member for life because of a slight that he feels impugned his fragile ego...while allowing others latitudes...then the whole "toeing the line" concept goes to sh*t.

When the other OP's stand behind him, a concept that I fully understand in the interest of community and shared ideology, then "toeing the line" becomes an arbitrary fantasy open to abuses.

Casteele.....wake up. You will never convince anyone that a ban for life for any transgression short of murder is warranted. Merely acknowledge the arbitrary powers of the OP's here and accept that when an OP with a grudge and a jealousy streak a mile long (and face it, who wouldn't be jealous of my life?) elects to exercise what little power he has in his life by using his strength as an OP in the cyber-universe where he actually means something, then logic and fairness fall to the side. I understand all of this. Just don't try to rationalize it as you sound juvenile.

There is nothing wrong with saying, "that's the way it is." Leave it at that. Sell your fantasies to someone who has a chance of believing them.

(in reply to Casteele)

RE: banned - 2/14/2017 9:20:55 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Causatum

You will never convince anyone that a ban for life for any transgression short of murder is warranted.

WRONG

Some people aren't worth having as a customer. It's called "firing a customer". Meaning the income they represent isn't worth the aggravation they cause. You're that person.

Lots of people here understand that concept.

Being here is a priveledge,not a right.

_____________________________

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

The Accelerated Velocity of Terminological Inexactitude

(in reply to Causatum)

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

0.164