Quote by wildwilly
Likewise I can ignore "How about a hob knob etc" because it is unlikely to interest me.
Knobist
No I'm not! Just dont like hobs
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Just my opinion but...
Casanova
Perhaps in your ideal world we would discuss more weightier topics such as the merits/demerits of Jaffa cakes, or revive the mighty "Jaffa Cake - Cake or Biscuit" discussion 
Hi Sgt ... and thanks for showing me that this topic has been opened already.
This issue is obviously upsetting a few people ....
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/42564.html
and ....
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/42532.html
and .....
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/42528.html
It does seem that this matter of post deletion is one that has stirred quite a lot of interest ... and things that push people's buttons are always worthy of discussion!! lol
Firstly, it has been pointed out to me that my initial post contained a URL to another adult site and that this is against posting rules. This is fair enough and I fully accept what has been said. However, the post had been edited to replace the offending piece with a series of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, and therefore don't see why the whole topic had to be silenced.
Firstly, posting rules clearly state that the Cafe is a place for general chit-chat and a venue to discuss anything. If a topic is not popular then it will die a natural death.
As a moderator on another site, I have seen my fair share of "crap" contributions. However, crap is a statement made on the basis of a subjective value judgement and tells us very llittle. By "crap" I mean peurile or simply posted to inflame and engender an aggressive response. Most of these posts are all too readily apparent.
If something posted clearly contravenes posting rules, I will lock the thread, but place an explanation as to why the thread has been locked. However, I will then take what I consider to be the legitimate aspects of the opening post (minus the inflammatory stance and use of personal invective) and start a new thread (pointing to the old thread) so that the subject matter is open for discussion. This means that I cannot be accused of attempting to silence anyone.
No intelligent person should simply have to accept authoritative decisions without question ... and moderation should never become a power trip! Moderation simply means ensuring that individuals and contributors are treated with fairness and respect. We are on a site that values libertation and freedom in a sexual sense. If that is the case then we need to show that we value liberation and freedom in a general sense, one of the most important aspects of that being freedom of speech! Silencing someone without telling them why IS very rude. If I can openly discuss whether my ex-girlfriend preferred to spit or swallow, but my attempts to discuss the protection of women and the validity of certain methods of safeguarding them is silenced, then something has gone a bit wrong in my humble opinon. And my opinion is something I am entitled to, in the same way that I am free to express my sexuality in the way that I wish and in conjunction with consenting adults.
I always feel that "less is best" when it comes to moderation. One of the surefire ways of losing people and to destroy a community is to attempt to silence its members. Also, if moderators are too quick to step in, the action is ALWAYS perceived as a power struggle. As a moderator, I find it is much MORE powerful if other contributors vote with their feet and do the talking for you! It actually demonstrates a strength of community. A topic that gets ignored and sinks to the bottom of the pile is more powerful than one that sinks because it is forced to.
If moderators already have a shed load of work to do (and they REALLY do, hats off to them for keeping a site like this running) then it would seem more sensible to let certain threads run or die a natural death. This cuts down the workload for a start. Why delete something when really, it doesn't need to be deleted? Such behaviour also demonstrates a self assurance and confidence of leadership. It is better to dive in and comment as a fellow contributor and take the moderation hat off!
Lastly, there are certain HOT topics that will be discussed over and over, and will keep returning. This is good in my opinion. There is never any harm in revisiting certain issues. Often, you can compare your recent contributions to previous threads and see how people have evolved in their opinions and moved on. it also helps you to re-evaluate your own ideas and opinions! I for one love to have my grey matter stimulated as well as my loins!
I personally think that posts should only be locked if they contravene some objective criteria (use of personal invective etc). Locking something because "it is crap" is locking it according to some unstated subjective preference that differs from person to person and isn't good enough. For one thing, it is rude as I've said before. However, I don't see that questioning authority (including the authority of this site and the standard of moderation) is off topic .. after all, we are invited to discuss anything!! It is a valuable moment in which moderators can dive in and defend the standards and ethos of the site with great vigour!
Peace to you all.
This issue is obviously upsetting a few people ....
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/42564.html
and ....
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/42532.html
and .....
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/42528.html
It does seem that this matter of post deletion is one that has stirred quite a lot of interest ... and things that push people's buttons are always worthy of discussion!! lol
Firstly, it has been pointed out to me that my initial post contained a URL to another adult site and that this is against posting rules. This is fair enough and I fully accept what has been said. However, the post had been edited to replace the offending piece with a series of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, and therefore don't see why the whole topic had to be silenced.
Firstly, posting rules clearly state that the Cafe is a place for general chit-chat and a venue to discuss anything. If a topic is not popular then it will die a natural death.
As a moderator on another site, I have seen my fair share of "crap" contributions. However, crap is a statement made on the basis of a subjective value judgement and tells us very llittle. By "crap" I mean peurile or simply posted to inflame and engender an aggressive response. Most of these posts are all too readily apparent.
If something posted clearly contravenes posting rules, I will lock the thread, but place an explanation as to why the thread has been locked. However, I will then take what I consider to be the legitimate aspects of the opening post (minus the inflammatory stance and use of personal invective) and start a new thread (pointing to the old thread) so that the subject matter is open for discussion. This means that I cannot be accused of attempting to silence anyone.
No intelligent person should simply have to accept authoritative decisions without question ... and moderation should never become a power trip! Moderation simply means ensuring that individuals and contributors are treated with fairness and respect. We are on a site that values libertation and freedom in a sexual sense. If that is the case then we need to show that we value liberation and freedom in a general sense, one of the most important aspects of that being freedom of speech! Silencing someone without telling them why IS very rude. If I can openly discuss whether my ex-girlfriend preferred to spit or swallow, but my attempts to discuss the protection of women and the validity of certain methods of safeguarding them is silenced, then something has gone a bit wrong in my humble opinon. And my opinion is something I am entitled to, in the same way that I am free to express my sexuality in the way that I wish and in conjunction with consenting adults.
I always feel that "less is best" when it comes to moderation. One of the surefire ways of losing people and to destroy a community is to attempt to silence its members. Also, if moderators are too quick to step in, the action is ALWAYS perceived as a power struggle. As a moderator, I find it is much MORE powerful if other contributors vote with their feet and do the talking for you! It actually demonstrates a strength of community. A topic that gets ignored and sinks to the bottom of the pile is more powerful than one that sinks because it is forced to.
If moderators already have a shed load of work to do (and they REALLY do, hats off to them for keeping a site like this running) then it would seem more sensible to let certain threads run or die a natural death. This cuts down the workload for a start. Why delete something when really, it doesn't need to be deleted? Such behaviour also demonstrates a self assurance and confidence of leadership. It is better to dive in and comment as a fellow contributor and take the moderation hat off!
Lastly, there are certain HOT topics that will be discussed over and over, and will keep returning. This is good in my opinion. There is never any harm in revisiting certain issues. Often, you can compare your recent contributions to previous threads and see how people have evolved in their opinions and moved on. it also helps you to re-evaluate your own ideas and opinions! I for one love to have my grey matter stimulated as well as my loins!
I personally think that posts should only be locked if they contravene some objective criteria (use of personal invective etc). Locking something because "it is crap" is locking it according to some unstated subjective preference that differs from person to person and isn't good enough. For one thing, it is rude as I've said before. However, I don't see that questioning authority (including the authority of this site and the standard of moderation) is off topic .. after all, we are invited to discuss anything!! It is a valuable moment in which moderators can dive in and defend the standards and ethos of the site with great vigour!
Peace to you all.
If I understand the suggestion correctly, editing, locking and deleting should only be used for posts which have identifiably breached the site AUP.
All other topics should be left to find their own level.
How would you respond flexibly to a situation not covered by the objective criteria.
For example, how would you respond to a long standing contributor who approached you on the site you moderate and said 'I used to enjoy the site, but there are so many crap posts that I just can't be bothered looking any more, can you do something about it'?
For a hypothetical situation for you to hang it on, a half dozen or so people on the site discover they have a shared interest in horse racing and over time open a slack handful of horse racing related threads are opened. These threads are kept afloat just from the interest shown by the small group. It is just enough to make others who are not interested in horse racing stop visiting..
The defence of the group is that they are not breaking any rules, and the cafe is there to discuss any subject.
lhk
Kat
All other topics should be left to find their own level.
How would you respond flexibly to a situation not covered by the objective criteria.
For example, how would you respond to a long standing contributor who approached you on the site you moderate and said 'I used to enjoy the site, but there are so many crap posts that I just can't be bothered looking any more, can you do something about it'?
For a hypothetical situation for you to hang it on, a half dozen or so people on the site discover they have a shared interest in horse racing and over time open a slack handful of horse racing related threads are opened. These threads are kept afloat just from the interest shown by the small group. It is just enough to make others who are not interested in horse racing stop visiting..
The defence of the group is that they are not breaking any rules, and the cafe is there to discuss any subject.
lhk
Kat
Sex God
For example, how would you respond to a long standing contributor who approached you on the site you moderate and said 'I used to enjoy the site, but there are so many crap posts that I just can't be bothered looking any more, can you do something about it'?
that you being all hypothetical and rhetorical kat? nobody would really say that would they?
:? :? ;)i very much want The Cafe to remain the open forum it always has been, but if locking threads encourages members to have a little think about the stuff they put up, and not just start completely random, pointless, go nowhere threads purely for the sake of it, then ok, i can live with that. might seem abitrary and heavy handed to some, but if that's what it takes to ensure there's content worth reading and stops long term members leaving the site or hiding out in PM, so be it.
i really hate to say things like this, cos it sounds like hankering after the good old days, but i've never seen the cafe so poor. it has it's dips from time to time, but the last month or two it seems particularly weak, and it's not serving the purpose it's designed for, as i and some others who've said the same thing to me would see it.
just want to qualify that, cos it reads a tad harsh . . .
i think what's happening, is a lot like a crowd of regulars hanging out in the pub chatting, then in comes a new group, who are so loud and excited, the regs can't hear themselves think? instead of the newer ones sitting down at the same table as the regs and joining in with the conversations, they talk over the top of everyone else. locking threads is kinda like encouraging them to join in a bit more with the people who are already here.
neil x x x ;)
Sex God
Quote by wildwilly
"Jaffa Cake - Cake or Biscuit"
Biscuit
:grin:
Sex God
Quote by bigDewi69
Jaffa Cake - Cake or Biscuit
Mutant hybrid designed to addict the masses and start numerous pub conversations on the same topic
Definately a biscuit :taz: . Anyone I cannot bully into agreeing with me will just be banned.
But in the interests of "equality" :haha: , let's start a poll :grin:
Quote by bluexxx
Jaffa Cake - Cake or Biscuit
Mutant hybrid designed to addict the masses and start numerous pub conversations on the same topic
Definately a biscuit :taz: . Anyone I cannot bully into agreeing with me will just be banned.
:I never said it wasn't, so :flipa: to you too
:scared:
Sex God
Quote by bigDewi69
Jaffa Cake - Cake or Biscuit
Mutant hybrid designed to addict the masses and start numerous pub conversations on the same topic
Definately a biscuit :taz: . Anyone I cannot bully into agreeing with me will just be banned.
:I never said it wasn't, so :flipa: to you too
:scared:
... Did I say I was referring to you specifically???? No.... so what's with you.... is it guilty conscience....???? You really do believe "cake", don't you????
That's it.... you're banned!!!!
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Casanova
To settle the argument once and for all
The original recipe for McVitie's Jaffa Cakes is a closely guarded secret, the delicious combination of light sponge, dark chocolate and smashing orangey bit in the middle was first created over 60 years ago. It is believed the “smashing orangey bit†is in fact the collective earwax of the McVitie family; Mrs. McVitie was particularly productive in the earwax department, sometimes scraping together as much as 2lbs per week from her own ears.
Back in 1991, we fought a battle with the VAT man to prove that Jaffa Cakes are cakes, not biscuits, and therefore should not attract VAT.
Sex God
Jaffa cakes with no orange :shock: ..... now that's just plain wrong!
Now wildwilly, I'm quite happy for the taxman to believe "cake"...... that's fine..... as long as we ALL agree that really, secretly, jaffa cakes are TOTALLY biscuits
Now wildwilly, I'm quite happy for the taxman to believe "cake"...... that's fine..... as long as we ALL agree that really, secretly, jaffa cakes are TOTALLY biscuits
Hi Kitkat
Well, I think this is the question being asked by all. The guidelines for posting state that the Cafe is for discussing anything. Item 1 in the guidelines says that the Cafe is for anything and everything. What limits can you place on anything? If people are told they can post in this manner.. and then can't, it isn't fair, I think everyone would agree with that.
I personally recognise that there are times when posts have to be locked or edited in someway. All I'm saying is that where this needs to be done there should be a clear explantion given as to why the action has been taken, otherwise we end up with countless threads like this ... and the time needed to respond to this would have been better used taking a few moments to provide an explanation in the first place! What people seem to have an issue with is locking without explanation. Or stealth moderation as I would call it.
Sgt. Bilko has recently locked a couple of threads and pointed us to this one, as more and more threads were opening on the same topic. i personally have no problem with that.
Where possible, yes. Hopefully in most cases.
I would ask them why they considered the posts crap. I would also remind them that we are a community and as such share a responsibility for making that community what we want it to be. I would ask them what topics they would consider interesting and to go ahead and post on those topics. I would say that leaving the site or not bothering to contribute to the forum will only leave things as they are. I would suggest that they need to think of ways in which they can be a part of the solution and to give it time.
Aren't people equally likely to give up if they post and have those posts deleted before they have a chance to respond?
Firstly, because the contributors have been told that they can post in here on "anything and everything" then there is in fact no problem with the subject matter! If people have been told that there is no limit on subjects then they can hardly be pulled up for their chosen topic!
The real problem here is that several threads have been opened on the same topic. It would be necessary to check the threads to see if any duplication is taking place. If say, four threads were open, it might be necessary to lock three of them, explain why this has happened but place links to the closed threads (for reference) in the one left open.
Everyone reading the threads can then clearly see that moderation is taking place, who is doing the moderating and why! People can then understand the rules a lot more clearly.
Well, they're not breaking the rules by discussing their chosen topic, unless we're saying that horse racing doesn't fit into "anything and everything". However, some direction might need to be given over not duplicating threads (and this exists in the rules for posting anyway!).
Once again, if people are complaining about the content of threads then I would encourage them to be a part of the solution. After all, moderators are there to manage the dicussions taking place, NOT have the burden of coming up with new topics all the time. After all, it's easy to sit back, criticise but then be like the people you're criticising and not make any valuable contribution. How is the person refusing to contribute any better than the person posting what they consider to be "crap" subject matter? After all, "crap" subject matter is better than no subject matter at all!
My issue is not with having to lock threads from time to time, but doing it with no explanation.
If I understand the suggestion correctly, editing, locking and deleting should only be used for posts which have identifiably breached the site AUP.
Well, I think this is the question being asked by all. The guidelines for posting state that the Cafe is for discussing anything. Item 1 in the guidelines says that the Cafe is for anything and everything. What limits can you place on anything? If people are told they can post in this manner.. and then can't, it isn't fair, I think everyone would agree with that.
I personally recognise that there are times when posts have to be locked or edited in someway. All I'm saying is that where this needs to be done there should be a clear explantion given as to why the action has been taken, otherwise we end up with countless threads like this ... and the time needed to respond to this would have been better used taking a few moments to provide an explanation in the first place! What people seem to have an issue with is locking without explanation. Or stealth moderation as I would call it.
Sgt. Bilko has recently locked a couple of threads and pointed us to this one, as more and more threads were opening on the same topic. i personally have no problem with that.
All other topics should be left to find their own level.
Where possible, yes. Hopefully in most cases.
How would you respond flexibly to a situation not covered by the objective criteria.
For example, how would you respond to a long standing contributor who approached you on the site you moderate and said 'I used to enjoy the site, but there are so many crap posts that I just can't be bothered looking any more, can you do something about it'?
I would ask them why they considered the posts crap. I would also remind them that we are a community and as such share a responsibility for making that community what we want it to be. I would ask them what topics they would consider interesting and to go ahead and post on those topics. I would say that leaving the site or not bothering to contribute to the forum will only leave things as they are. I would suggest that they need to think of ways in which they can be a part of the solution and to give it time.
Aren't people equally likely to give up if they post and have those posts deleted before they have a chance to respond?
For a hypothetical situation for you to hang it on, a half dozen or so people on the site discover they have a shared interest in horse racing and over time open a slack handful of horse racing related threads are opened. These threads are kept afloat just from the interest shown by the small group. It is just enough to make others who are not interested in horse racing stop visiting..
Firstly, because the contributors have been told that they can post in here on "anything and everything" then there is in fact no problem with the subject matter! If people have been told that there is no limit on subjects then they can hardly be pulled up for their chosen topic!
The real problem here is that several threads have been opened on the same topic. It would be necessary to check the threads to see if any duplication is taking place. If say, four threads were open, it might be necessary to lock three of them, explain why this has happened but place links to the closed threads (for reference) in the one left open.
Everyone reading the threads can then clearly see that moderation is taking place, who is doing the moderating and why! People can then understand the rules a lot more clearly.
The defence of the group is that they are not breaking any rules, and the cafe is there to discuss any subject.
Well, they're not breaking the rules by discussing their chosen topic, unless we're saying that horse racing doesn't fit into "anything and everything". However, some direction might need to be given over not duplicating threads (and this exists in the rules for posting anyway!).
Once again, if people are complaining about the content of threads then I would encourage them to be a part of the solution. After all, moderators are there to manage the dicussions taking place, NOT have the burden of coming up with new topics all the time. After all, it's easy to sit back, criticise but then be like the people you're criticising and not make any valuable contribution. How is the person refusing to contribute any better than the person posting what they consider to be "crap" subject matter? After all, "crap" subject matter is better than no subject matter at all!
My issue is not with having to lock threads from time to time, but doing it with no explanation.
Sex God
For God's sake just leave it, Ukman. The mods do a job (might be different to the mod job you do, but that IS on a different site) and you've agreed to the terms of the site in order to be a member. If you don't like it, just leave. Complaining about rules you've accepted won't get you anywhere. Unless you are shown the door for going on about it.
Sex God
Quote by UKman37
My issue is not with having to lock threads from time to time, but doing it with no explanation.
You seem to still have a bee buzzing around in your bonnet cos I locked your thread without explanation. If I lock a thread, usually I give a brief explanation of why it was locked. I didn't bother wasting my time in this case, as it was a clear breach of the AUP. If you had read the AUP you would have known instantly why it had been edited then locked (for those how don't know, UKman37 had given the name of a pay site within his post, which I edited out with XXXXXXXXs - I then locked the thread). Indeed, if you had read the AUPAND abided by it, we would not be wasting our time having this discussion now, would we? As I told you in PM, I trust this matter is now resolved. If you do not think this matter is resolved I suggest you go and find something bigger and more important to think about.
Quote by wildwilly
Perhaps in your ideal world we would discuss more weightier topics such as the merits/demerits of Jaffa cakes, or revive the mighty "Jaffa Cake - Cake or Biscuit" discussion
You know, I read this at pm, just before dashing out for a meeting. Thought about it on the way, thought about it on the way back, came in, had something to eat, thought about it some more and I still cant decide whether it was an insult or not!
That being the case :cheers:
It was a good one!
As pointed out above, I was responding to a direct question ... and have made it clear that I included a URL in my thread .. and that I have accepted that I was at fault for this. At some point this appeared to be an issue that several people had a problem with and were willing to discuss.
I like to make substancial answers - but reply above was to Kitkat personally .. as you can see. The topic had caught a number of people's interestes and had resulted in some debate ... which is good!
I like to make substancial answers - but reply above was to Kitkat personally .. as you can see. The topic had caught a number of people's interestes and had resulted in some debate ... which is good!
Master of Sex
As one of the more trivial contributors to the site and relatively new, I am certainly not going to get on a soap box about this issue. I'm glad to see it's being aired though, the recent 'lock happy' days seem to have prompted a review point. Here's my splurge, take it or leave it.
I hope that the hard-pressed mods might start to consider a 'lock' as a extreme action for extreme circumstances. We often hear the phrase 'would you behave like in a pub/face-to-face. I don't know what the real-world equivalent is to locking a thread, because in real-life someone would probably tap you on the shoulder to continue the conversation, perhaps to retract, perhaps to ask for explanation or perhaps to give you a further piece of their mind. You don't know which in advance, that makes things more exciting.
I use another phpBB forum regularly. I'm not sure that the mods even know what 'lock' does, I've certainly never seen them use it. Complete drivel - from kids or equivalent mental age adults - gets deleted. Conversations that start to get out of hand get specifically commented on and peoples behaviour moderates (the intended role of the 'moderator' unsurprisingly). Boring or off the wall threads, like all others, have their moment and then scroll off the page. People are usually happy to respond to the same old questions by finding the old threads helping the newbies to discover the joy of search, even updating and giving their own take on the subject, it gives the old hands and not-so old a chance to show the newbies how nice we all are. Sometimes saying 'search on xxx and yyy' is quite enough of course. ;)
It's true that one or two trolls can wreck a forum given a chance. Somehow SH seems to be able to deal with those without locking, usually by the standard practice of just hijacking the thread for the purpose of other members amusement, and why not?
If diverse interests within one forum can somehow be segregated - into two or more forums - then perhaps this will help those who have specific interests such as only wanting to read sex related or personal specific threads I'm talking to one of NeilInLeeds points here). Maybe we need a 'pub' forum as well as a 'cafe' ?
Anyhow, I'm not one to knock anyone for their good work, done for the love of it. SH is unique so far as I know and a beacon of liberation in a sea of rip-off merchants and con-artists, thanks largely to the efforts of the management. I just want to reinforce the point made already that 'the community is your friend' and will ease a mod's burden considerably given the chance; trust is the antidote to 'power corrupts'.
I hope that the hard-pressed mods might start to consider a 'lock' as a extreme action for extreme circumstances. We often hear the phrase 'would you behave like in a pub/face-to-face. I don't know what the real-world equivalent is to locking a thread, because in real-life someone would probably tap you on the shoulder to continue the conversation, perhaps to retract, perhaps to ask for explanation or perhaps to give you a further piece of their mind. You don't know which in advance, that makes things more exciting.
I use another phpBB forum regularly. I'm not sure that the mods even know what 'lock' does, I've certainly never seen them use it. Complete drivel - from kids or equivalent mental age adults - gets deleted. Conversations that start to get out of hand get specifically commented on and peoples behaviour moderates (the intended role of the 'moderator' unsurprisingly). Boring or off the wall threads, like all others, have their moment and then scroll off the page. People are usually happy to respond to the same old questions by finding the old threads helping the newbies to discover the joy of search, even updating and giving their own take on the subject, it gives the old hands and not-so old a chance to show the newbies how nice we all are. Sometimes saying 'search on xxx and yyy' is quite enough of course. ;)
It's true that one or two trolls can wreck a forum given a chance. Somehow SH seems to be able to deal with those without locking, usually by the standard practice of just hijacking the thread for the purpose of other members amusement, and why not?
If diverse interests within one forum can somehow be segregated - into two or more forums - then perhaps this will help those who have specific interests such as only wanting to read sex related or personal specific threads I'm talking to one of NeilInLeeds points here). Maybe we need a 'pub' forum as well as a 'cafe' ?
Anyhow, I'm not one to knock anyone for their good work, done for the love of it. SH is unique so far as I know and a beacon of liberation in a sea of rip-off merchants and con-artists, thanks largely to the efforts of the management. I just want to reinforce the point made already that 'the community is your friend' and will ease a mod's burden considerably given the chance; trust is the antidote to 'power corrupts'.
Ok so here's a thought on the whole thread locking debarcle.
For minor infringements i.e. terminally boring or real crap posts how about
a jags slap
Let's face it most of us like a dominant woman
I thank you.
By the way jags if you'd like to administer mine in person let me know when your in the lonsedale next
For minor infringements i.e. terminally boring or real crap posts how about
a jags slap
Let's face it most of us like a dominant woman
I thank you.
By the way jags if you'd like to administer mine in person let me know when your in the lonsedale next
Quote by freckledbird
For God's sake just leave it, Ukman. The mods do a job (might be different to the mod job you do, but that IS on a different site) and you've agreed to the terms of the site in order to be a member. If you don't like it, just leave. Complaining about rules you've accepted won't get you anywhere. Unless you are shown the door for going on about it.
Well I personally like what he is saying and can relate to a lot of it. I think this sort of debate is healthy and Sarge said the mods were following it. If you are not interested don't read this one thread, rather than lambasting those who have put time and effort into a post. Sorry but it is obvious that this is important to some people and negative comments have pushed some of it into PM so now I (as a regular and interested user) can't follow it as you didn't want to have to ignore it :?
If you are not interested please don't waste your time reading my post, or mine simply complaining I made it. If you want to argue the points I would be happy to talk about them, but Sarge asked for comment so I am providing it.
As a member for over a year I have seen the cafe go up... and down... now I respect the mods immensly, know a few of them personally, and think they have a tough job. I know this is Marks site, I know it is all done on a voluntary basis, and I know the AUP means you can lock, edit, delete or whatever any post. Oh yes and we can all leave if we don't like it as has been said... but I thought locking was to stop members leaving due to 'crap' posts not push them out the door for not liking it and saying so?
Ok I sound like I having a dig but this is really letting off steam, I have been blasted for wanting to put points on the other how we do things type thread on social meets. I have seen long term members and friends getting upset with the site, and newbes leave to. They are not all flouncers, and some of them brought good things to us here.
So much for moaning, what would I do? Well not lock anything, there is nothing more annoying than not being able to reply to a thread, if it an idiot one it will get hijacked, or ignored. This sorts people out more than a lock as they see the lack of reaction (or incur the wrath of to cafe) and it gets them no pleasure. Locking in some ways makes em feel noticed.
As for 'we done this to death!!' so what? Leave it, maybe it is ripe for another visit or some new people (they do keep joining) will want to put their point of view and this is all for the good. Adding to an old post I find worse, I don't have time to read through 15 pages of an old post to find the 5 new posts at the end. I often have to speed read the cafe, anything over 5 or so pages will normally be skipped, so old threads at 20 pages about shaving are no use to me. Put a link in to the old thread yes, this adds depth for those with time to read it but let it run. Sod the regulars a little here, if you not interested in shaving debate don't read it, let the new people have their say though...
What about a serial poster? 20 threads a day of crap? Ok this is a serious problem and the mods would need to dive in with the individual, we there I think are talking deleting threads raised by them and maybe bans. I have seen this a few times and respect the mods for acting (although others didn't) However the same apprach to all newbee threads and anything considered 'crap' is too far IMHO. Let the threads die on there own, surely we can learn to ignore what we don't want to read?
At the end of the day sticking to the AUP saves the mods work as if it not in the AUP it will get left. Now if as was suggested we end up with a horseriding group using us all the time, then eventually the cafe would get the hump and a thread would be started for an open debate on it. If that lead us to feel this should be taken away from the cafe then there you go, open, democratic, and we get to a solution the mods can act on without having to do all the soul searching themselves.
My feelings about censorship are that if something is wrong or ofensive it should be debated. If someone is ofensive the membership should have the oportunity to tell them to feck off. Most of the forums I use have the facility for moddies ti merge threads, and this is the best way to stop repetative threads. Lets face it, those who come here to piss us off do so knowing they, or their posts will be locked or deleted and they love it. I think their posts should stay, just so we can let them know what we think of them.
Hi Bluexxx
Not really, I'm quite calm about it all actually. I wasn't going to mention it until I noticed that another contributor had also had the same experience and was equally confused. I had some idea as to why mine had been locked ... but I'm really quite tired of it now! I only wanted to discuss whether having paid options on adult sites acutally protects women from timewasters and pervs ... but never mind.
Yes, and anyone is free to view the thread. You actually locked two ... but no matter.
I don't think many of the contributors consider some aspects of this discussion a waste of time. I think the matter has grown beyond petty grievances over posts to the whole issue of free speech in general. I personally feel that's a good thing. Moderation of forums is in itself quite an interesting topic and some people (even if only a few), feel that they want to contribute.
No one is forced to post anywhere or respond to ANY thread whatsever. No one is being coerced. People make their own choices as to whether to engage in debate or not.
You seem to still have a bee buzzing around in your bonnet cos I locked your thread without explanation.
Not really, I'm quite calm about it all actually. I wasn't going to mention it until I noticed that another contributor had also had the same experience and was equally confused. I had some idea as to why mine had been locked ... but I'm really quite tired of it now! I only wanted to discuss whether having paid options on adult sites acutally protects women from timewasters and pervs ... but never mind.
If I lock a thread, usually I give a brief explanation of why it was locked. I didn't bother wasting my time in this case, as it was a clear breach of the AUP. If you had read the AUP you would have known instantly why it had been edited then locked (for those how don't know, UKman37 had given the name of a pay site within his post, which I edited out with XXXXXXXXs - I then locked the thread).
Yes, and anyone is free to view the thread. You actually locked two ... but no matter.
Indeed, if you had read the AUP AND abided by it, we would not be wasting our time having this discussion now, would we? As I told you in PM, I trust this matter is now resolved. If you do not think this matter is resolved I suggest you go and find something bigger and more important to think about.
I don't think many of the contributors consider some aspects of this discussion a waste of time. I think the matter has grown beyond petty grievances over posts to the whole issue of free speech in general. I personally feel that's a good thing. Moderation of forums is in itself quite an interesting topic and some people (even if only a few), feel that they want to contribute.
No one is forced to post anywhere or respond to ANY thread whatsever. No one is being coerced. People make their own choices as to whether to engage in debate or not.
Quote by Ice Pie
The problem here is that if someone wants to talk about something that has been discussed before, they can do one of two things:
1. Start a thread and be subjected to the dismissive and disrespectful "The search button is your friend" mantra.
2. Bump an old thread and get the other broken record, "This has been done to death."
Either way, the message is, thou shalt search the entire history of the forum before posting anything, and if it's been talked about before, thou shalt shut up.
This guarantees that mountains of total shit will be posted, because all the interesting topics have been 'covered' before. Some of that shit, like "Who's your favourite comedian?" will be welcomed, some of it, e.g. "I'm watching so-and-so on telly, isn't that interesting" will be binned, and some of it, word association for example, will be tolerated until someone decides that it too has been "done to death", and nobody can tell in advance which shit will be allowed and which shit will be shot down in smug sanctimonious flames. The upshot is, long-standing members get pissed off and leave, and newbies get slaughtered on day one and don't bother again.
Maybe there is some deep psychological need for a couple of the people with the extra buttons to have the last word, so what we end up with is their sarcastic, arrogant bullying cluttering up the board - locked of course so that the people they insult can't respond.
How very grown up.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :thumbup:
have to agree with ice
:roll:
Brighton Geezer said this elsewhere, but as Sarge suggested it is better to reply here.
This is not a general public forum - it is a focus group.
We enjoy my time on here because it is a focus group, we would enjoy it more if it was more focussed. Not focussed into oblivion, just more focussed on sex, swinging and fun than it is now.
All this talk of "What an internet forum should be ..." is completely irrelevant to us. We are not hugely interested in forming an internet egalitarian Utopia - only in getting what we want. Perhaps if more people thought, understood, and spoke, in terms of what they wanted, rather than leaping between grand generalisations and microscopic minutia, we would get through this stuff a bit quicker.
We want a cafe which is flirty, fun, and sexually charged, while still being prepared to take time to discuss those serious sex and swinging related questions that arise, and supportive enough to allow those who are in the early days of exploring their sexuality to do so in a safe environment.
lhk
Kat
That is issue one - which broad subject areas I feel should be encouraged, and which discouraged.
Issue two - is what role the moderators and other site members play in promoting a site which meets their needs.
Issue three - is how the moderators and other site members fulfill that role.
But, I have shopping and a party for 6 year olds to go to before I can address the next two.
Quote by Brighton GeezerFor us, (Kit and I) it is not a question of free speech, controversy, or people being offended, or breaching the AUP, or any of that other high brow stuff. Iit is simply a question of what we are looking for when we come in the cafe.
My feelings on the basic right of free speech might be controversial, but here goes.
I believe that in an open and public forum, everyone should be able to say what they like. I just hate censorship full stop. People get offended by all manour of things, but at the end of the day its only words, remember the old saying about sticks and stones. At this moment in time the ost controversial topics are about sexual orientation, religion, race, and even football. OK it is rule of thumb that these are subjects down the pub as a fight could break out. But this is just the internet. My attitude is simple. If someone makes a post that offends, then it is down to those who disagree to defend themselves or their friends. We are adults, we should neither want or expect to be babysat.
Controversy is the reason for most ofensive posts anyway, these people like being banned and deleted, they wear it like a badge of honour. Best they are told to feck off by the membership than deleted by moderators, this holds no esteam for them.
This is not a general public forum - it is a focus group.
We enjoy my time on here because it is a focus group, we would enjoy it more if it was more focussed. Not focussed into oblivion, just more focussed on sex, swinging and fun than it is now.
All this talk of "What an internet forum should be ..." is completely irrelevant to us. We are not hugely interested in forming an internet egalitarian Utopia - only in getting what we want. Perhaps if more people thought, understood, and spoke, in terms of what they wanted, rather than leaping between grand generalisations and microscopic minutia, we would get through this stuff a bit quicker.
We want a cafe which is flirty, fun, and sexually charged, while still being prepared to take time to discuss those serious sex and swinging related questions that arise, and supportive enough to allow those who are in the early days of exploring their sexuality to do so in a safe environment.
lhk
Kat
That is issue one - which broad subject areas I feel should be encouraged, and which discouraged.
Issue two - is what role the moderators and other site members play in promoting a site which meets their needs.
Issue three - is how the moderators and other site members fulfill that role.
But, I have shopping and a party for 6 year olds to go to before I can address the next two.
