RE: moderation interpretation?

RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:26:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 RapierFugue, it isn't that the pope of rope needs to be the op. Someone with a sincere question wanting an honest answer is enough. Most people on the site will try to be helpful. Even you. maybe.[;)] The issue then is how to build a welcoming atmosphere for someone starting a thread, if that person is nervous, or unsure, ie isn't a troll or a pompous ass. Sometimes it is hard because a well meaning person will post something like "I think all dominants who like to humiliate their submissives suck and are abusive".... how are we supposed to respond to that without making the person feel somewhat ganged up on, and at the same time make sure others reading understand that they may not understand a kink, but it doesn't make that kink wrong Sometimes for me, it's just a fine line that I see. We have so many different personalities that post here. Completely different senses of humour, completely different backgrounds, upbringings, concepts of good versus bad manners, cultural differences. I see people getting upset over some things that just totally baffle me......and other times I cannot believe more people are not upset over something. So......when some threads are created that tend to be 'hot topics' all of those differences become glaringly obvious. I mean really.......people creating entire discussions about one word and the perceptions, positive, negative or neutral about that ONE WORD and how it was used in a thread. That's the kind of stuff that makes me sit back in bafflement. And the fact that people get upset over the point of view of a person they will likely never ever even meet....to the point of moderation. Then twist, dance, turn the thread into a free for all that has very little bearing, quite obviously, on the intial OP. It is some really great people watching but damn. And that is just my point of view based upon MY personal filters. All too often I think we all totally ignore that other people have entirely different filters. Just because they are different does not make them right or wrong, just different. That inability to acknowledge tends to lead to some really nasty and childish behaviour. When it is between people that seem to be able to hold their own......meh, whatever. But sometimes I think we all forget that there really are human beings behind those words. And sometimes, some of the harshest and most difficult to swallow words are the armour of those that are at the core, the most hurt by the repurcussion of their own words. I try to avoid getting personal but I often fail. When I recognize that I've crossed my OWN line, I do get annoyed with myself. I kind of like to be personally responsible and not make me, the responsibility of a moderator.

GreedyTop -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:32:23 AM)
I would comment on a thread if I felt the OP had a valid (to me) subject. I do not think I am alone in that attitude. Sometimes, when the OP DOES offer a valid (to me) subject or comment, I do NOT comment because I feel that nothign I say will be worthwhile (It's already been said). I contribute where I think I can, I joke on other threads (the ones that just BEG it.. and c'mon, you all do the same), and I TRY to ignore the threads that neither are appropriate (mostly. sometimes I make a wrong call, and I DO get modsapnked for it)

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:32:37 AM)
I have probably gotten my panties into a twist for stupid reasons in the past.. (actually I know I have).

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:38:22 AM)
As have I. I love a rousing debate. Hell, I've even played devils advocate and taken a stance that is opposite from my own beliefs just because I like to think outside my own little personal comfort zone box. And yes Greedy, all too often my inner snark just comes a blasting out to wreak utter havoc. Or, at least, see if she can.

sexyred1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:44:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I always wonder about the people who complain about this site while comparing it to Fet. Apparently Fet is wonderfully moderated, the quality of discussion is learned and erudite, and nobody swears or ever takes jabs at other posters. My question is, why do you spend time here with our grade school intellects, blatantly biased moderation, and all the endless personal attacks and childish insults? Why, if Fet is so obviously superior, do you waste your time here with us morons? I agree with you. I laugh when people compare CM to Fet. Fet is annoying as hell. And the amusing thing is that the few times I glance over the board there, I have read tons of really disgusting, far more vicious attacks than I ever read here. I am talking over the top snark. The other funny thing is that so many complain about some mythical clique here; when in reality, Fet is overrun with cliques. And talk about childish? Some of the group names and behavior make CM look like a Mensa meeting. The people who are complaining about how our intellects are so far below the ones on Fet, are just frustrated that their pompous self righteous comments are not providing a love fest for them and people here actually dare to call them on their bull. As for moderation, I am elated with the jobs and behavior of the mods here now. I felt that the past MOD, was a vindictive type and because of that, so many of the more interesting and funny posters are no longer here. As always, this is not your site, so if you don't like the way things are run, leave.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:46:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not believe I have ever read a thread about a topic that you generated. I used to generate questions all of the time. I ran out of them. Therein lies the rub, if you are not generating content as a user, can you blame anybody but yourself that there is no content? I just wanted to address this. BonesFromAsh makes a consistent effort to generate serious and thought-provoking threads, but they are in the Ask A Mistress section and so maybe out of your sphere. If anyone has a right to talk about the content of the site I'd say it's her more than anyone else.

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:48:03 AM)
More?

sexyred1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:48:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I always wonder about the people who complain about this site while comparing it to Fet. Apparently Fet is wonderfully moderated, the quality of discussion is learned and erudite, and nobody swears or ever takes jabs at other posters. My question is, why do you spend time here with our grade school intellects, blatantly biased moderation, and all the endless personal attacks and childish insults? Why, if Fet is so obviously superior, do you waste your time here with us morons? This site has played a critical role in my life, and I have helped to build it in some small ways. I'm invested. I'm not going to leave just because the boards currently look the way they do. The problem is fixable. The personals still is a draw Fet does not have, so people will investigate the boards. The newbie traffic is not an issue per se. Retention is. Yes, your contributions have shaped the site immeasurably. Perhaps we should call you the architect of collarme.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:49:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not believe I have ever read a thread about a topic that you generated. I used to generate questions all of the time. I ran out of them. Therein lies the rub, if you are not generating content as a user, can you blame anybody but yourself that there is no content? I just wanted to address this. BonesFromAsh makes a consistent effort to generate serious and thought-provoking threads, but they are in the Ask A Mistress section and so maybe out of your sphere. If anyone has a right to talk about the content of the site I'd say it's her more than anyone else. I do not read over there, you are right. I am mostly addressing the general discussion forum... which was what I thought she was referencing. My post was not intended to come off as snarky, if it was read that way, it was not my intention. My view is that if you want something to happen, make it happen. But that is just how I live my life.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 9:53:44 AM)
If you called me that, you would be wrong.

sexyred1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:03:52 AM)
I did comment on that because you said you shaped the site. I find that comment to be rather pompous, considering that this is a user generated content site, therefore all of us, even people who post once and never return, contribute and shape the site. I think you believe, and some others do, that due the longevity of their time here, they are entitled to some say in how the place is run; and guess what, you are not. I have been here for the same time as you and I would never imagine myself to be that important in the grand scheme of things. And I contribute intelligent conversation, silly conversation and snark, as most of us do. I do it in a very upfront manner and some do it in a passive aggressive manner. As for newbies being scared away...please, give me a break. We were all newbies at one time or another and some of us stayed. I doubt that those who leave left because it was so scary here. If so, they are not the types of people who are served well by online message boards and free speech. They can go and start their own sites or blogs. The comments about the comparisons between CM and Fet are just ridiculous. To keep belaboring the issue is futile.

BonesFromAsh -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:12:36 AM)
Thanks VC...I try to contribute when I can or when I have a topic that I'm curious about. Honestly, I was surprised with how a recent thread I started (in Ask a Mistress) about emotions and how they're handled within relationships that are d/s or m/s based. While most of the posts were on point, the amount of responses were few. Maybe CM has run its course or maybe my post wasn't thought-provoking enough...either way, I thought it could have led to a discussion of more length. quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not believe I have ever read a thread about a topic that you generated. I used to generate questions all of the time. I ran out of them. Therein lies the rub, if you are not generating content as a user, can you blame anybody but yourself that there is no content? I just wanted to address this. BonesFromAsh makes a consistent effort to generate serious and thought-provoking threads, but they are in the Ask A Mistress section and so maybe out of your sphere. If anyone has a right to talk about the content of the site I'd say it's her more than anyone else.

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:13:20 AM)
quote: onsidering that this is a user generated content site, therefore all of us, even people who post once and never return, contribute and shape the site. I think you believe, and some others do, that due the longevity of their time here, they are entitled to some say in how the place is run; and guess what, you are not. I have been here for the same time as you and I would never imagine myself to be that important in the grand scheme of things. And I contribute intelligent conversation, silly conversation and snark, as most of us do. I think I understand your point, but I would just say that the above is slightly contradictory... are we a "user generated content site", if we are, we are all having a voice in how the place is run by our very presence. I slightly disagree with what I quoted. I think that management cares a great deal about what we think aggregately of how things are ran around here. I think the mods are reading the comments on this thread. I think that our opinions matter to them. And I also think that they weigh our opinions based upon our past history posting here (not by length of our history, but the quality of it). I could be wrong about that, of course, it would not be the first time I have been so. I see nothing wrong with making suggestions, giving an opinion, or sharing our ideas to make the site better. My impression of the management is that they are open to that, and to be honest, the people who say "if you don't like it leave" sound more afraid of possible change than the management probably is.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Also, Fetters4u, if you are interested in making a scientific count of changing rate of newbie retention on the boards, you could count the average number of total posts made by someone who started an introduction thread in the first three months of 2008, and compare it to the same statistic in the first three months of 2011. The difference is clear. The only thing up for discussion us the reason for that difference. I have to disagree. All discussion of retention has to focus on if you are retaining members you want. Any group can retain vast numbers of members by the simple means of having zero standards. CM's policy appears to be to allow existing members to set the standards as much as possible. We weed out trolls and idiots and asshats by our negative responses or lack of a response. We encourage potential new members by our friendly a/o helpful responses to their posts. From a cultural point of view, we are an online community who polices our own membership quite effectively, if not with 100% consistency. That is too be expected. Too many trolls and idiots, and asshats, and the real members who might be interested in a discussion will go elsewhere. I personally think that there are posters who feed trolls unnecessarily and I wish they wouldn't, I think the trolls would go away quicker if ignored. But, you know, it's not my forum, I don't get to make the rules. As far as those who descend into personal attacks on others posters, frankly I wish those posts were not removed, I enjoy seeing who has been rendered a complete asshat over a thread on a discussion board (must be the sadist in me). I prefer CM to FL because of the free wheeling nature of the discussions. Anyone can respond to any thread, the creator does not own it and thus get to direct it. In case I haven't made it clear, I think the moderators do a marvelous job considering how difficult it must be at times.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:22:40 AM)
It would also be possible to construe your remark to me as an off topic personal attack, sexyred1. I would like to ask the mods to leave it in the thread, even if they see it as a tos violation, because I think it is an interesting example.

GreedyTop -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:36:19 AM)
oy

JstAnotherSub -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:38:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 It would also be possible to construe your remark to me as an off topic personal attack, sexyred1. I would like to ask the mods to leave it in the thread, even if they see it as a tos violation, because I think it is an interesting example. It could also been construed as being spot on. That is, I think, what this thread is about. We can all read something, and all see it differently. Since the mods are, well, the mods, they have to make the judgement calls sometimes.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:39:59 AM)
Veh?

VaguelyCurious -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:54:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse More? Yes, I think so. She starts more serious, content-heavy threads than anyone else I can think of right now. I've always been of the opinion that if you (generic) don't like the tone of the site or the content on the site then you either contribute to changing it or you shut the hell up. Sometimes I get fed up with the negativity and post a happy thread, but in general I can't sustain a level of thread creation that will make a change. BFA does a bang-up job of keeping going and I admire and respect her for that, even if I'm not always able to contribute to her threads because they don't quite tally with my life. quote: ORIGINAL: BonesFromAsh Thanks VC...I try to contribute when I can or when I have a topic that I'm curious about. Honestly, I was surprised with how a recent thread I started (in Ask a Mistress) about emotions and how they're handled within relationships that are d/s or m/s based. While most of the posts were on point, the amount of responses were few. Maybe CM has run its course or maybe my post wasn't thought-provoking enough...either way, I thought it could have led to a discussion of more length. I personally couldn't answer because my primary relationship isn't really d/s based. But I'd say there was as much genuine, useful, thought-provoking content in that thread as there are in ones that are many pages longer but full of chattering and/or circular arguments. (Not that I don't like chattering or enjoy the rhythm or debating with people to an extent, but I do think you have to use different criteria to assess the lengths of different kinds of threads.) Did any of that make sense?

Arpig -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/19/2011 10:58:51 AM)
quote: Arpig, i truely believe that just because something is free doesn't mean we can't comment on things if we feel they could be better. i've been on paid sites and there is always someone like you who crops up and says 'if you don't like it then leave'. it's a cop out comment that solves nothing. I'm not going to go back and check, but I don't think I ever mentioned it being free. In my case it's not a cop out. I'm not going to try help you solve anything, because I don't think anything needs to be solved. You and Red are trying to correct a problem that I do not think is a problem. I do not want the changes you want, I want things left the way they are. I like things the way they they are. If you guys get the moderation kicked up, and I no longer enjoy this place, then what would your reaction be to my whining about how overly moderated the board is? See my point? The present mods DO pull over the top personal attacks, just on this thread, at the top of this very page, Rho stepped in to warn two posters from continuing what was obviously likely to escalate. See, they do do their job, and do it just fine. But they allow jabs and mild insults, and that's what I like about it. As far as I'm concerned, a compromise has been reached between those like me who really would prefer far less moderation and those who want more. That's right, I think about 75% of the stuff I've seen that subsequently get pulled, shouldn't be pulled. The post Aynne88 is bitching about is one I wouldn't have pulled if I were in charge of the moderation (see why I don't volunteer, and why Alpha doesn't ask me...) I've expressed this view before, and I'm sure I will again. I'm all grown up. Personal attacks by random online people I will never ever meet face to face don't really affect me. If they get you all that upset, then it's you that has the problem. Even face to face, I'm darn hard to insult. If you're not picking on my kids it's really unlikely to do more than mildly annoy me. The gist of this thread is that this place needs cleaning up. I don't think it does. So when I tell people to go elsewhere if they don't like it here, I'm not avoiding any issue, I'm simply stating my preference. The fewer thin-skinned crybabies we have around here, the better I'll like this place. Maybe it is the rhino-hided old timers I come here to see and read, but so what. Those are the ones I like, not the fragile little newbs who can't handle being called a twit when they are being a twit. Instead of telling everybody else to grow up and not insult people or swear, I suggest you grow up, and learn to deal with it. It's just pixels on a screen. It don't mean a thing.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02