RE: The decline of collarme (Full Version)

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



Message

Kaliko -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 7:01:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi

"That's stupid" is different because it is referring to behavior. "You are stupid" is a personal attack and as such is not allowed.



Well, that's stupid.


;)



Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 7:05:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aedonix

makes me wonder if posts are modded using the "Find" function looking for among other words the word "You" (so this post is now flagged lol)

if that is so. typos are your friend and you (there it is again) could simply out in "ypu asshat" and it would never be found lol

I got it..................I fuckin GOT IT.

TXT SPK. U asshat [sm=alien.gif]



VideoAdminChi -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 7:10:21 AM)

quote:

makes me wonder if posts are modded using the "Find" function looking for among other words the word "You" (so this post is now flagged lol)


No we don't and no it's not.



Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 7:17:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi

quote:

makes me wonder if posts are modded using the "Find" function looking for among other words the word "You" (so this post is now flagged lol)


No we don't and no it's not.

According to the mods Ive spoken to (and I trust their word) there has to be a report made.
There was once mod tho would actually go look for and dig up stuff that noone had reported (at least that's what the person told me and why would they lie[8|] ) that wasn't reported but that person isn't presently active.



Aedonix -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 7:18:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi

quote:

makes me wonder if posts are modded using the "Find" function looking for among other words the word "You" (so this post is now flagged lol)


No we don't and no it's not.



It just seemed odd that others in this thread have implied that context is not taken into consideration always. so it kinda made me wonder.



mnottertail -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 7:19:33 AM)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3384927/mpage_19/key_liar/tm.htm#3386404

So, is this on or off?



LadyPact -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 7:51:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aedonix

makes me wonder if posts are modded using the "Find" function looking for among other words the word "You" (so this post is now flagged lol)

if that is so. typos are your friend and you (there it is again) could simply out in "ypu asshat" and it would never be found lol
I actually laughed reading this.

The search feature here is better than having none but a keyword like "you" would be impossible, even if you had the author. At 300 results, it would kick back for more information. You'd get closer with using "you asshat" if you knew the author used that particular comment.

My language is generally pretty clean, so I tried this just for fun. I searched five words that would be gold letter material if I used them referring to another poster. Holy crap that got old quick. I can't imagine anybody being willing to go through the boredom.




Aedonix -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 7:56:35 AM)

no... not the search function.. the "Find on page" function which would be available on any site..

but all in all it is my poor attempt at clever wit.. do feel free to ignore me lol



LadyPact -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 8:01:31 AM)

Nah. I thought it was actually funny. (I've got a really weird sense of humor.)

My way was mind numbingly boring. I can't imagine anybody subjecting themselves to it for very long.



Aedonix -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 8:09:54 AM)

but then... Modding HAS to be mind numbing anyway.. I know i wouldnt want to have to read thru some of these threads to find context. I am sure some of the mods must wake up and think "Oh hell.. here we go again!"



LaTigresse -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 8:44:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TAFKAA


quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis

If there were allegations of favoritism, I would be concerned. But the main complaint seems to be: I don't like TOS and I resent having to follow it.

Well of course there's fucking favouritism, how the hell do you think the fragile flowers who spam the fucking report button get their jollies?

I certainly got more gold letters than the whiny bitches who debated with me and lost ever did. That was because they reported me for personal attacks all the time and I refused to do the same because it was beneath me. I deal with a personal attack by removing their fucking head, not whining to mommy.

The moderators' reponse? "Oh we didn't see their personal attack, only yours - you should report them when that happens." - Ye Gods, it was in the same thread... in fact I fucking quoted it, you dolt.

Disingenuous bullshit like that was the order of the day. And people wonder why this place is in decline.

It's in decline for several reasons:

1) Firstly because there's a complete failure to understand the deep psychology of human beings. To whit: What is the one essential component of all plays, novels and movies? The foundation of all dramatic art?

Conflict.

The moderation here has turned the place into a pseudo-civil milquetoast community which penalises the free expression of ideas and opinions. Conflict is abhorred - although the reasons are not made clear - and a rather narrow set of definitions regarding unwelcome behaviour are put in place - something a group of regulars know and exploit on a consistent basis.

This place is dying because you can't say boo to a goose without some overzealous fucktard with a moderator's badge censoring you for it. Why the fuck would people want to hang around a place where passionate debate is impossible? Unless you think kink people are cold, unfeeling machines who practice kink purely as an outlet for their need for artistic expression.

You can't legislate good behaviour. Or civility. And what on earth makes anyone think that in a place like this you should even try? The only upside I can see is that by doing so you make it more warm and fuzzy for all those timid male subs so the FinDommes can more easily ply their trade. Funnily enough, I think old AmandaRanja may have been onto something.

2) The jaded old "masters of kink"

Regulars are given free reign to stomp all over any discussion which fails to meet with their personal approval. Self-appointed arbiters of discussion tell people to "search for it" - thinking that because THEY happen to have discussed a particular question to death that nobody else has the right to discuss it. The possibility of just not reading the fucking thread is apparently to complex for them to process.

Here's an idea: Why not let the self-appointed jaded "masters of kink" sit in their own forum where they can grumble all day about these newbies who know nothing. That way they can avoid the discussion threads which repeat things they've already discussed and settled on and newbies can avoid their jaded, unwelcoming asses.

3) Subsumed aggression

Of course, all the overzealous censure doesn't really eliminate the aggressive behaviour between members, it just causes it to fester and people express this as 'snark'.

Every time you see the word 'snark' replace it with 'being a cunt and getting away with it' - because that's all it really is. Snark is basically personal attacks which operate with moderator sanction. The classic example is using a generalisation which clearly applies to your opponent in a debate.

For example: "I find that all male Doms who disbelieve in the inherent superiority of women tend to have lower IQ's than the norm."

Using a generalisation doesn't stop it from being a personal attack, you fuckwit. You're posting it in response to your opponent, so of course it's referencing them. Otherwise - under the current regime - you'd be censured for thread drift. (Since posting generalisations about groups of people is hardly relevant to the thread topic.)

Essentially you're trying to claim a plausible deniability to which you're not entitled. And the moderators are letting you get away with it. A stance which is wildly inconsistent with the theme of "no personal attacks". Instead it's "no personal attacks unless it's worded trickily enough that we can look the other way" with a nod and a wink to the regulars.

4) P&R as justification

P&R was always going to be a basket case. Throw in "abortion" and you'd have had the trio of topics you never discuss at the dinner table. Using P&R as justification for increased moderation is like using injuries in the boxing ring as justification for a crackdown on harsh language. If you don't want 'em to get injured, don't build the fucking ring and toss them into it. Nannying the other forums because the forum with the greatest tribal alliances wasn't a model of civil discourse is just plain fucking stupid.

In summary, this place is dead because there's no life in it. The essentials of life: fire; passion; growth; are all absent while people behave like cardboard similes of real human beings. And I'm afraid not wanting to scare away the pay piggies is the only motivation which explains this nonsense.

Like it or not people, this forum isn't for you. You're just here to make it seem like there's a scrap of life in the place. So most of these debates go nowhere precisely because nobody is motivated by your happiness or enjoyment of CollarChat. You're here to serve a purpose, not enjoy yourselves.

I wonder how long this post'll last.


Excellent post, even if I don't agree with it 100%.



Aswad -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 8:53:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

Well, that's stupid.


Obviously. The notion that a personal attack is somehow distinguished by the use of second person reference is, aside from being factually false in a formal sense, and instinctively false in a colloquial sense, also quite beurocratic. It reminds me of watching GM/DM types in RPGs trying to deal with problem players by trying to "catch" them in breaking the rules, instead of just saying "dude, you're fucking up everyone else's enjoyment, so will ya please stop, or must I tell you to leave?"

If I pop into a thread where someone is feeling down about having gained a few pounds and looking for support, and I then post "I hate fatties. Lardbutts at (insert OP's weight) are just so far over the line they should kill themselves while there's still a large enough casket to be found", then that's clearly a personal attack if anything is. Heck, I know people that have tried to kill themselves over such comments, and spent plenty of time comforting people that have been hurt by that sort of thing. But it would apparently pass the rules here, whereas saying "Now you're just being a douche." in reply to such a post is likely to get slammed, including if the OP is the one doing so, which I'm aware from experience will result in a perception that the attacker and the moderators have tag-teamed that poster.

This isn't a big deal for me, but it does cause a fair bit of eyerolling and facepalming, since it's a pretty silly policy, just not a very harmful one. Might've been more of an issue for my sensitive significant other, but she left over the things that are a big deal to me, lacking my patience with it, so I'm not inclined to pursue this one.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



descrite -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 9:19:37 AM)

quote:

Well of course there's fucking favouritism, how the hell do you think the fragile flowers who spam the fucking report button get their jollies?



This entire post was genius and I wish I'd written it.



metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 9:26:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TAFKAA
Well of course there's fucking favouritism, how the hell do you think the fragile flowers who spam the fucking report button get their jollies?

I certainly got more gold letters than the whiny bitches who debated with me and lost ever did. That was because they reported me for personal attacks all the time and I refused to do the same because it was beneath me. I deal with a personal attack by removing their fucking head, not whining to mommy.


That is a choice, not favoritism. If the post violated TOS and was allowed to remain after you reported it, that would be favoritism. Its disingenuous to call your unwillingness to report posts "mod favoritism". It assumes the mods have ESP and can just intuit when someone makes a posts that violates TOS. They can't. It's your responsibility to report it, or deal with the consequences of not reporting. Can I tell you a secret? I don't report posts either. Or, rather, I've reported maybe 5 in the years I've been here, and most of those were for mentioning illegal activity. I've never reported a post as a personal attack. But then, having made the decision not to report, I don't complain about what's still there.

quote:


I wonder how long this post'll last.


Somehow, I think it will stay.

Pam



metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 10:10:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: needlesandpins

quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis
Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? One would be a TOS violation, and the other not. Right?
It's unfair to blame your unwillingness to do so on the mods.


because context is everything. sometimes you can not say the former because it doesn't fit the context of the whole conversation.

needles


I'm not buying it. Please show me an example of where criticizing a poster's specific behavior did not fit into the context of the whole conversation, and only a criticism of a poster themselves would do.

Pam



Hillwilliam -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 10:14:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis

quote:

ORIGINAL: TAFKAA
Well of course there's fucking favouritism, how the hell do you think the fragile flowers who spam the fucking report button get their jollies?

I certainly got more gold letters than the whiny bitches who debated with me and lost ever did. That was because they reported me for personal attacks all the time and I refused to do the same because it was beneath me. I deal with a personal attack by removing their fucking head, not whining to mommy.


That is a choice, not favoritism. If the post violated TOS and was allowed to remain after you reported it, that would be favoritism. Its disingenuous to call your unwillingness to report posts "mod favoritism". It assumes the mods have ESP and can just intuit when someone makes a posts that violates TOS. They can't. It's your responsibility to report it, or deal with the consequences of not reporting. Can I tell you a secret? I don't report posts either. Or, rather, I've reported maybe 5 in the years I've been here, and most of those were for mentioning illegal activity. I've never reported a post as a personal attack. But then, having made the decision not to report, I don't complain about what's still there.


quote:


I wonder how long this post'll last.


Somehow, I think it will stay.

Pam

quote:


What about borderline (at absolute BEST) posts that were NOT reported but still generated letters for personal attack?

That means that SOMEONE has a little guardian angel.

They exist. Lots of em.



needlesandpins -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 10:34:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis

quote:

ORIGINAL: needlesandpins

quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis
Then why can't you just say "that's hypocritical" instead of "you are a hypocrite"? One would be a TOS violation, and the other not. Right?
It's unfair to blame your unwillingness to do so on the mods.


because context is everything. sometimes you can not say the former because it doesn't fit the context of the whole conversation.

needles


I'm not buying it. Please show me an example of where criticizing a poster's specific behavior did not fit into the context of the whole conversation, and only a criticism of a poster themselves would do.

Pam


actually Pam, on further thought i see no difference in writing either way when applying it to a specific person. talking about 'personal attack' as opposed to statement of truth doesn't change that. it's semantics. i guess i'm a 'call a spade a spade' girl.

however, just to satisfy you;

if you choose to act in one way, while claiming others are a certain way, when what you are doing is worse then you are a hypocrite.

you continue to act this way, and by your own admission you are doing B which is actually worse than the A you are talking about, therefore you are a hypocrite.

it's either a personal attack, or it isn't. they both mean exactly the same thing if directed at a specific person by this site's ruling. it doesn't actually change the fact that in real life it's just a statement of fact based on how the person chooses to behave.

using 'that's hypocritical' only works in it's context as a generalisation. even saying it to the person who is being a hypocrite is still by rights a statement of truth. the fact that it doesn't have the 'you' prefix doesn't change what it means at all. all it means is that on this site the rules are made up as they go along, and you can't tell someone that they are acting a certain way without somebody else having a panick attack and clicking the report button to get medicated.

needles



metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 10:51:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
What about borderline (at absolute BEST) posts that were NOT reported but still generated letters for personal attack?


Not sure I follow you.

"Not reported" by whom? By the person who perceives himself "attacked"? By anyone? How do you know they weren't reported? How do you know a mod didn't just happen to see them?

Maybe there is favoritism. But the only thread I've seen criticizing the mods for a specific incidence of favoritism (while providing any kind of detail, instead of just saying "the mods are biased" or "I expect this post to disappear") was written by Karmastic, a while ago. That doesn't mean there haven't been other threads or posts about it, but if there were, I didn't see them.

If you have any evidence (even anecdotal evidence, if the post has already been pulled) that the mods are playing favorites, then I would encourage you to complain about it publicly, giving as much detail as possible. If you do, and that post gets pulled, then please tell me about it, honestly. Because if anyone can convince me that that's true, it would upset me and I would advocate for them. I don't know if that would change anything, but if it were true I would be willing to fuss about it, because it matters to me that things are fair here. But you have to pitch a better argument than "the mods are playing favorites". You have to show that that's happening. If things are as unfair as you claim, then it shouldn't be that hard to find an example or two, and explain why it constitutes favoritism.

Unless you are willing to take that much trouble to show the justice of your claims, there's no reason for me to trouble myself about them.

Pam



kdsub -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 11:03:07 AM)

quote:

Well, that's stupid.


;)


Bad girl... BAD BAD BAD...I think I love you...lol

Butch



metamorfosis -> RE: The decline of collarme (1/5/2013 12:05:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: needlesandpins
...actually Pam, on further thought i see no difference in writing either way when applying it to a specific person.
 

No? Then why don't you choose to say it in a way that does NOT violate TOS?

quote:

talking about 'personal attack' as opposed to statement of truth doesn't change that. it's semantics.


No. The two statements mean different things. "You are a hypocrite" is a criticism of the person, themselves. "That is hypocritical" is a criticism of the argument. I think the administration is perfectly right in saying that the first is unacceptable while the second is.

I can think of no possible "context" that would require you to criticize the person instead of their argument. I don't think that rule is unreasonable or difficult to follow, and I'm mystified at this public outcry. That said, I would be willing to concede the point and abide by a new set of rules if that's what the majority of posters wanted. Can you say the same? Because, frankly, I think it's selfish for a small group of posters to try to impose their will over the majority. You've been "outvoted" on this. I think it's fair to expect you to abide by the consensus. If there were something inherently unfair about expecting people to attack the post and not the poster, then I might agree with you. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong, regardless of how many people agree. But this is simply a matter of preference. What makes what you want so much more important than the sum of what everyone wants?

If you want, I can start a poll and prove it. But I'm pretty sure the majority of posters like that rule the way it is and, that being the case, it's unreasonable to expect the mods to change it.

Pam



Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875