Quote by Tra-n-Lee
The best thing I ever learnt from my parents - in any argument or discussion, put yourself in every other parties shoes
I'm up for that - as long as they have six inch heels! :P
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Old Steam Room Stuff
last reply
275 replies
5.4k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by Mark Horne
The best thing I ever learnt from my parents - in any argument or discussion, put yourself in every other parties shoes
I'm up for that - as long as they have six inch heels! :P
Thats a point actually - six inch heels...
Not so much the heels, but how they get stuck in bloody pavements when the girl is on a night out!
Now I don't wear them, but my shoulder is bloody sick of having Tra balance on it whilst she adjusts to first drag the heel out of the pavement crack and then put the bloody thing back on!
I demand the abolishment of pavement slabs in favour of one all-flat surface across the nation!!!
:lol: :lol: 
Sex God
Quote by Jags
We thought long and hard about this one Mike - well, we always think long and hard about any such issues really.
Such was the real threat that, in this instance, we felt it severe enough to take severe steps. I don't want to go into this matter on the public forum but suffice to say that the police may be involved by now. Threats are threats and we take the safety of members seriously.
police involved what access are they going to have to site archives
this is worrying
Quote by leprechaun
We thought long and hard about this one Mike - well, we always think long and hard about any such issues really.
Such was the real threat that, in this instance, we felt it severe enough to take severe steps. I don't want to go into this matter on the public forum but suffice to say that the police may be involved by now. Threats are threats and we take the safety of members seriously.
police involved what access are they going to have to site archives
this is worrying
They need no access to site archives to get involved...
Events have moved on and got a whole heap more serious...
Just another reason why the person in question is no longer welcome here.......And justly so to my mind...
Quote by leprechaun
We thought long and hard about this one Mike - well, we always think long and hard about any such issues really.
Such was the real threat that, in this instance, we felt it severe enough to take severe steps. I don't want to go into this matter on the public forum but suffice to say that the police may be involved by now. Threats are threats and we take the safety of members seriously.
police involved what access are they going to have to site archives
this is worrying
The police will not need to see what has been written on here Lep as I think I am correct in thinking that what is involving the police is not on the forum.
As I am party to the full facts in this matter I fully stand my what the Mods have done regarding naming and shaming one particular member..... His threats are without doubt extremely worrying to the people involved.... To those people
I apologise to Kaz for not publically supporting her in this matter but have only just had the chance to fully digest this thread.... :kiss:
Please can I just add that when the Mods take this sort of action it is not without alot of discussion first and not without good reason.... So please trust in your Mods, they are acting for your protection.... To the Mods :kiss:
Shireen
xxx
Sex God
Does Wishmaster threaten physical harm to every single member of this site,, or just to the site itself?
Does he have a history of physical or sexual abuse on members?
If so, would it not have been to Voddy's advantage to warn her that *she* and everyone else, may have been in physical danger? The way I read it is that he has made threats to the mods, not every single member on here.
Or does he just make wild irrational threats and have a hot temper?
If it has suddenly become ok for Kaz to still have her party thread on forum and for Wishmaster to still go, does this enforce the idea that he is not an actual threat to the members in general, maybe just the mods and the site?
Whilst I do not for one minute, advocate threats of harm to ANYONE, if he has not made threats to ordinary site members, would it not just have been easier for Mal and Missy to have dropped out of the Pompey social, after informing Voddy of their reasons?
As I understand it, she was not aware of any threats being made, so would have no reason to be concerned when moderators put their names down to attend
She specifically asked Missy on her thread to put her name down. No one can surely believe she would have invited her along, knowing that she would have been in danger ffs!!!
I fail to see how banning her for 14 days is going to achieve anything, especially as it is now stated publicly that Kaz may continue to keep her party thread on forum, when it is known that Wishmaster is going to be there. She has not been banned when it would appear that the mods have known all along that Wishmaster was to be attending :?
The only reason I can see for Voddy's ban is that mods were going to be in attendance, but with this in mind, I have not followed Kaz's thread, but am I to take it that no mods have elected to attend her function?
I have never met Wishmaster, nor had a lot to say with him apart from the usual chatroom stuff, but what I do know is that Voddy would never knowingly have put anyone in danger, so either she was not aware or he is not an actual threat to ordinary site members, or both.
Either way, the rules were bought in AFTER her social night was planned, same as it was also AFTER Kaz's party was. How come Voddy gets a ban, when both these events were planned BEFORE the new *rules* ? :?
Tracy-Jayne
Does he have a history of physical or sexual abuse on members?
If so, would it not have been to Voddy's advantage to warn her that *she* and everyone else, may have been in physical danger? The way I read it is that he has made threats to the mods, not every single member on here.
Or does he just make wild irrational threats and have a hot temper?
If it has suddenly become ok for Kaz to still have her party thread on forum and for Wishmaster to still go, does this enforce the idea that he is not an actual threat to the members in general, maybe just the mods and the site?
Whilst I do not for one minute, advocate threats of harm to ANYONE, if he has not made threats to ordinary site members, would it not just have been easier for Mal and Missy to have dropped out of the Pompey social, after informing Voddy of their reasons?
As I understand it, she was not aware of any threats being made, so would have no reason to be concerned when moderators put their names down to attend
She specifically asked Missy on her thread to put her name down. No one can surely believe she would have invited her along, knowing that she would have been in danger ffs!!!
I fail to see how banning her for 14 days is going to achieve anything, especially as it is now stated publicly that Kaz may continue to keep her party thread on forum, when it is known that Wishmaster is going to be there. She has not been banned when it would appear that the mods have known all along that Wishmaster was to be attending :?
The only reason I can see for Voddy's ban is that mods were going to be in attendance, but with this in mind, I have not followed Kaz's thread, but am I to take it that no mods have elected to attend her function?
I have never met Wishmaster, nor had a lot to say with him apart from the usual chatroom stuff, but what I do know is that Voddy would never knowingly have put anyone in danger, so either she was not aware or he is not an actual threat to ordinary site members, or both.
Either way, the rules were bought in AFTER her social night was planned, same as it was also AFTER Kaz's party was. How come Voddy gets a ban, when both these events were planned BEFORE the new *rules* ? :?
Tracy-Jayne
Quote by RedHot
How come Voddy gets a ban, when both these events were planned BEFORE the new *rules* ?
Tracy-Jayne
Voddy was given a two week ban because of pm's Wishmaster was sending out on another site:
From: Wishmaster
To: ............
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005
Subject: Portsmouth Social
Hiya,
There is a social evening coming up in Portsmouth on Thursday 15th Dec... it would be great to meet you if you can make it.
Voddy (CheekyJo) is running it from SH.
She's doing it on my behalf as it will be my last day working in the area.
Cya soon hopefully
Wishmaster xxx
We don't expect people to organise socials through this site on the behalf of banned members .......... hence the slapped wrist.
Steve
Quote by da69ve
The day will come when the Mods will think" fuck this do we really need the hassle" and ban all advertising of socials and munches!.....its just getting too complicated to moniter!
And what would that do ? Just drive people to invite others and "have you any friends" by PM or Email ???
Whole damn thing seems to be getting too "big brother" for me..
Snort Snort, Animal farm.
Quote by Phoenix
The day will come when the Mods will think" fuck this do we really need the hassle" and ban all advertising of socials and munches!.....its just getting too complicated to moniter!
And what would that do ? Just drive people to invite others and "have you any friends" by PM or Email ???
Whole damn thing seems to be getting too "big brother" for me..
Snort Snort, Animal farm.
There just seem to be a big " Who Har"....every other week about these events and one day it will all come a great big stop!!
Sex God
I have something to admit
i am a lonley sad indervidula that has a swinging adiction..............
who's mum takes his pics and has baggy boxers.
oh well that has changed the subject....
MikeC
i am a lonley sad indervidula that has a swinging adiction..............
who's mum takes his pics and has baggy boxers.
oh well that has changed the subject....
MikeC
Quote by RedHotAnd are Mods not entitled to be regarded as members now? Should a threat to a moderator be treated as an occupational hazard?
If so, would it not have been to Voddy's advantage to warn her that *she* and everyone else, may have been in physical danger? The way I read it is that he has made threats to the mods, not every single member on here.
Tracy-Jayne
Which is largely beside the point.
The moderators on the site are here ONLY to moderate what happens on this site.
In recent months, moderators have been increasingly dragged in to events which occur outside of the site.
The ONLY responsiblity a moderator has under these circumstances is that when the site is being used to escalate conflict, they remove those people from the site.
What you lot do when you log off is up to you, we have no interest or control over that. As far as site moderation is concerned, the only thing of interest is what you do on here.
but what I do know is that Voddy would never knowingly have put anyone in dangerYet Voddy was about to put someone in danger. - and who was it that contrived that situation?
lhk
Kat
I've been sidelined by relatives since earlier and now I'm reticent to start fanning dying embers.
I'm very grateful to all the mods, they must have discussed this amongst themselves, and whilst the handling of it all may not have been 10/10 I do believe they have done so in the best interest of the site and all of us.
That said, I'm an adult not a child and can be trusted to make my own decisions when in full possession of all the facts. I do believe that all this hoohar could have been resolved with less controversy had the mods had been more open with the details. TBH last I knew Wishmaster had been given a temp cooling down ban. He'd have less sympathisers on this site if we'd all been in possession of the facts and if we'd been asked to look at our involvement with him.
I'm not for one minute trying to tell the mods how to do their job, but the rumour mill can be avoided. We're adults and yes whilst 99% of modding jobs don't need to involve us and I'm more than happy to let them deal with them, there are some issues that we need to know about.
Where do we draw the line at threats? Who decides which is worse, an actual sexual assault on one of our members or the threat of someone pulling the site? I might have the assaulter on my msn and have made arrangements to meet that person for all anyone else knows ... how much responsibility do we take for our fellow swingers? Do we wait until someone is or killed before we say "well actually that person was banned two days before??"
These are my last words on the subject. What values do we hold dear within this community? Trust ? Can we trust our fellow swinger to be holding our safety in their hands, and do we leave this to chinese whispers and the rumour mill that is so damn apparent or do we look at ourselves and at a way to genuinely report misdemeanours protecting both ourselves and the alleged. What responsibilty do we have? If someone is banned how do we know? If we are having dealings with a banned person what responsiblities do we need to have then?
You can only make an informed choice with information.
Calista x
I'm very grateful to all the mods, they must have discussed this amongst themselves, and whilst the handling of it all may not have been 10/10 I do believe they have done so in the best interest of the site and all of us.
That said, I'm an adult not a child and can be trusted to make my own decisions when in full possession of all the facts. I do believe that all this hoohar could have been resolved with less controversy had the mods had been more open with the details. TBH last I knew Wishmaster had been given a temp cooling down ban. He'd have less sympathisers on this site if we'd all been in possession of the facts and if we'd been asked to look at our involvement with him.
I'm not for one minute trying to tell the mods how to do their job, but the rumour mill can be avoided. We're adults and yes whilst 99% of modding jobs don't need to involve us and I'm more than happy to let them deal with them, there are some issues that we need to know about.
Where do we draw the line at threats? Who decides which is worse, an actual sexual assault on one of our members or the threat of someone pulling the site? I might have the assaulter on my msn and have made arrangements to meet that person for all anyone else knows ... how much responsibility do we take for our fellow swingers? Do we wait until someone is or killed before we say "well actually that person was banned two days before??"
These are my last words on the subject. What values do we hold dear within this community? Trust ? Can we trust our fellow swinger to be holding our safety in their hands, and do we leave this to chinese whispers and the rumour mill that is so damn apparent or do we look at ourselves and at a way to genuinely report misdemeanours protecting both ourselves and the alleged. What responsibilty do we have? If someone is banned how do we know? If we are having dealings with a banned person what responsiblities do we need to have then?
You can only make an informed choice with information.
Calista x
Chucking in my 2p's worth. 
Three things have been uppermost in my mind.
You know when you are a regular on SH when you have seen your 5th debate on the trouble tossmaster wishmaster has caused.
The Mods have never named and shamed anyone so take it as granted this is an extreme measure to combat a threat.
Why is Kaz, who last week was sexually assaulted, allowing banned members, one of whom is banned for sexual assault, access to every female who frequents her party? Unless she is planning a special badge for him and lettng everyone know who he is and what he is banned for.
Glad Kaz can have her party now. I'd like to go and idiots like these wont stop me as I have done nothing wrong (although Kaz may want to revoke her invite for me) , but it'd be weird seeing the rejects from SH there. I hope, I really hope Kaz doesn't have to make a public apology for yet another female being harrassed. Or for the fight that breaks out when Wishmaster calls me a cunt again after verbally abusing certain members from this site.
Three things have been uppermost in my mind.
You know when you are a regular on SH when you have seen your 5th debate on the trouble tossmaster wishmaster has caused.
The Mods have never named and shamed anyone so take it as granted this is an extreme measure to combat a threat.
Why is Kaz, who last week was sexually assaulted, allowing banned members, one of whom is banned for sexual assault, access to every female who frequents her party? Unless she is planning a special badge for him and lettng everyone know who he is and what he is banned for.
Glad Kaz can have her party now. I'd like to go and idiots like these wont stop me as I have done nothing wrong (although Kaz may want to revoke her invite for me) , but it'd be weird seeing the rejects from SH there. I hope, I really hope Kaz doesn't have to make a public apology for yet another female being harrassed. Or for the fight that breaks out when Wishmaster calls me a cunt again after verbally abusing certain members from this site.
Quote by Calista
That said, I'm an adult not a child and can be trusted to make my own decisions when in full possession of all the facts.
Believe me when I say that to publish everything that has gone on would not only be insensitive and upsetting to others but would also cause so much fall out that Chernobyl would look like a teddy bears picnic.....
People MUST trust in the mods/ops on this site that everything they do is done with great deliberation and IS in the best interests of the site and its members and is in no way personal but based on FACT..
Well I am not for a list of banned members, but I know the board software (assuming we sticking with it after Monday but the idea still valid) supports a 'Banned' rank marker (the purple line showing posts).
Maybe a good solution is to use this to highlight perm and temp bans? We all have a persona on here, and if we abuse our position then will be publicly (as much as having an alias pulled up is public) blasted for it in the forums. If we really push it we will get banned and a lot of it goes behind closed doors (for good reason I know).
Now a simple BANNED / INACTIVE state means that the community can see quickly if a member is inactive. This way there is no 1 list of banned people, no overt naming and shaming needed as such. If you are running an event you can search on the persons username and get 'Banned' come back, rather than does not exist.
Maybe a good solution is to use this to highlight perm and temp bans? We all have a persona on here, and if we abuse our position then will be publicly (as much as having an alias pulled up is public) blasted for it in the forums. If we really push it we will get banned and a lot of it goes behind closed doors (for good reason I know).
Now a simple BANNED / INACTIVE state means that the community can see quickly if a member is inactive. This way there is no 1 list of banned people, no overt naming and shaming needed as such. If you are running an event you can search on the persons username and get 'Banned' come back, rather than does not exist.
As we hadnt been to a munch for ages till last weekend we cant say how things were handled but...
As new rules for munches also state that a ban from the chatroom also excludes you from a munch then Shireen and I kept NWC informed as to anyone we saw on the list of attendees was actually banned from the chatroom...
The only problem with that was that some choose a different name for chat that they use in the forum ....
A single unified log-in could help to sort this out but failing that then I am sure that a chatrrom op would be happy to give the list of attendees the once over to see if anyone on that list may be banned....
As new rules for munches also state that a ban from the chatroom also excludes you from a munch then Shireen and I kept NWC informed as to anyone we saw on the list of attendees was actually banned from the chatroom...
The only problem with that was that some choose a different name for chat that they use in the forum
....A single unified log-in could help to sort this out but failing that then I am sure that a chatrrom op would be happy to give the list of attendees the once over to see if anyone on that list may be banned....
Sex God
Quote by RedHot
If so, would it not have been to Voddy's advantage to warn her that *she* and everyone else, may have been in physical danger? The way I read it is that he has made threats to the mods, not every single member on here.
Tracy-Jayne
Quote by KitKat
And are Mods not entitled to be regarded as members now? Should a threat to a moderator be treated as an occupational hazard?
Of course Mods are members of the site, but what you fail to grasp is the point of my question - does Wishmaster single out the mods or threaten *every single member of the site*?
If he does, how can Kaz be allowed to continue her party thread on forum? Surely this is the site allowing a potential threat to members by the continuance of the advertising of such a get together with a banned member?
.
Quote by RedHot
but what I do know is that Voddy would never knowingly have put anyone in danger
Quote by KitKat
Yet Voddy was about to put someone in danger. - and who was it that contrived that situation?
lhk
Kat
The key word here is highlighted - you are assuming she was in full possession of the facts, or are you suggesting that she KNEW and was happy to put us all in danger? If so, then that is some insult :fuckinghell:
T-J
Sex God
:shock:
Quote by postie
Why is Kaz, who last week was sexually assaulted, allowing banned members, one of whom is banned for sexual assault, access to every female who frequents her party? Unless she is planning a special badge for him and lettng everyone know who he is and what he is banned for.
Just a thought, but does Kaz know who was banned for sexual assualt?? She may not....
This is such a difficult situation, and it is not one that we as Mods/OP's relish.... The shit flinging that goes on behind the scene's is something that we do not enjoy, and having to deal with situations like this are not easy. As the saying goes "You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time"
I will just re-itierate what we have been saying..... Please trust us that we are acting for the good of the site and for the protection of our members....
Shireen
xxx
Quote by RedHot
If so, would it not have been to Voddy's advantage to warn her that *she* and everyone else, may have been in physical danger? The way I read it is that he has made threats to the mods, not every single member on here.
Tracy-Jayne
Quote by KitKat
And are Mods not entitled to be regarded as members now? Should a threat to a moderator be treated as an occupational hazard?
Of course Mods are members of the site, but what you fail to grasp is the point of my question - does Wishmaster single out the mods or threaten *every single member of the site*?
If he does, how can Kaz be allowed to continue her party thread on forum? Surely this is the site allowing a potential threat to members by the continuance of the advertising of such a get together with a banned member?
.
Quote by RedHot
but what I do know is that Voddy would never knowingly have put anyone in danger
Quote by KitKat
Yet Voddy was about to put someone in danger. - and who was it that contrived that situation?
lhk
Kat
The key word here is highlighted - you are assuming she was in full possession of the facts, or are you suggesting that she KNEW and was happy to put us all in danger? If so, then that is some insult :fuckinghell:
T-J
I gotta be honest here TJ..
I think the thread should be removed asap..
He has threatened mods from this site.....Mods are members......Simple as....
The man despises mods/ops and everything they stand for because we have the power to exclude him from this site and that no longer makes him the "master".....
IMHO the man is dangerous and no activity where he is attending should be advertised anywhere on this site..
Quote by Shireen_Mids
Why is Kaz, who last week was sexually assaulted, allowing banned members, one of whom is banned for sexual assault, access to every female who frequents her party? Unless she is planning a special badge for him and lettng everyone know who he is and what he is banned for.
Just a thought, but does Kaz know who was banned for sexual assualt?? She may not....
This is such a difficult situation, and it is not one that we as Mods/OP's relish.... The shit flinging that goes on behind the scene's is something that we do not enjoy, and having to deal with situations like this are not easy. As the saying goes "You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time"
I will just re-itierate what we have been saying..... Please trust us that we are acting for the good of the site and for the protection of our members....
Shireen
xxx
but in a way you are arguing our point there Shireen .... last I heard Wishmaster was on a temp ban and so I wasn't bothered about him attending ... now I find out he's been threatening been permanently banned etc ....
unless we are told who is banned then how are we supposed to know?
Quote by Steve_Mids
As we hadnt been to a munch for ages till last weekend we cant say how things were handled but...
As new rules for munches also state that a ban from the chatroom also excludes you from a munch then Shireen and I kept NWC informed as to anyone we saw on the list of attendees was actually banned from the chatroom...
The only problem with that was that some choose a different name for chat that they use in the forum
A single unified log-in could help to sort this out but failing that then I am sure that a chatrrom op would be happy to give the list of attendees the once over to see if anyone on that list may be banned....
There u go Calista
An option..
Quote by RedHotNo - I didn't fail to grasp it, just resented being lumped in with everyone else. Wishmaster never threatened me, or Kit. You also know Red, that right now, Wishmaster does not register a single flicker on my give a shit meter, he is beneath my personal radar. and you know why.
Of course Mods are members of the site, but what you fail to grasp is the point of my question - does Wishmaster single out the mods or threaten *every single member of the site*?
How far do you think he would have to go to drag me away from my stuff to deal with this?
The key word here is highlighted - you are assuming she was in full possession of the facts, or are you suggesting that she KNEW and was happy to put us all in danger? If so, then that is some insult :fuckinghell:I know she was not in full possession of the facts . What I also know is that the only person who could have put her in full possession of the facts was Wishmaster. He chose not to.
T-J
Why did he choose not to?
You can understand him not giving a shit about those who banned him, but putting his friends in this position?
Kat
Quote by Steve_Mids
As we hadnt been to a munch for ages till last weekend we cant say how things were handled but...
As new rules for munches also state that a ban from the chatroom also excludes you from a munch then Shireen and I kept NWC informed as to anyone we saw on the list of attendees was actually banned from the chatroom...
The only problem with that was that some choose a different name for chat that they use in the forum
A single unified log-in could help to sort this out but failing that then I am sure that a chatrrom op would be happy to give the list of attendees the once over to see if anyone on that list may be banned....
There u go Calista
An option..
Steve ... many moons ago munch guidelines were argued through and it was suggested that Mods look over the list like this was rejected .. now all of a sudden it's an idea.
I pm'd a mod yesterday and was told fine trying pm'ing them if you can't then they are excluded ... that's fine but there are various spellings of a number of names, and someone I chat to on msn might get banned from here and that doesn't protect me as an individual does it?
TnH's idea is a good one imo . I don't have the answers just a lot of concerns over safety.
C x
Sex God
I've refrained from commenting so far on this issue, but hey ho, just a couple of small observations to drag this subject out a tad longer 
......
1. Aside from the issue of one forum member's event being jepardised for a short while (which is now sorted), I cannot see the massive problem here. It has ALWAYS been the case that if SH members are organising events on behalf of banned members that person will be slapped or maybe banned. It also has always been the case that advertising Munches on other sites is not allowed. Hopefully, the new rule that KitKat.... not Mal! ... worded will make this issue crystal clear.
2. I have to say I find it worrying that to some it looks like those who shag mods get special treatment. If this is really how it looks, we need to think why that might be. I can state, hand on heart, without the shadow of a doubt that I personally have never given ANYONE special treatment if I have shagged them.... I can tell you that I have wholeheartedly voted in favour of banning members in the past whom I have considered personal friends cos they acted grossly against the site rules. I am actually offended if any of you think that I give certain people special favours. If anyone does think I am unprofessional in this way, please tell me... in private if you which. You may think I am biased, but I am sure that ALL of the mods act for the benefits of the site not for their own personal gain, or for the benefit of their shag buddies. Again, if you truly think this is untrue you need to say so! See, mods are in a a very difficult dilemma..... we are mods, yes, and that is a role we do voluntarily... but we also have friends on here, some of us have partners who are also members, and some of us have fuck buddies and are active advertisers on the site. Sometimes we HAVE to make a mod decision about one of our friends in a way that we can justify and which may be personally very difficult....
I ask you... how would you react if you were a mod and, for example, had to ban your partner for site abuse?
I could do it... could you...?
I am borg :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Anyways, what was the point again? Oh yeah........ that was it.... what is the actual point of this subject????
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
......1. Aside from the issue of one forum member's event being jepardised for a short while (which is now sorted), I cannot see the massive problem here. It has ALWAYS been the case that if SH members are organising events on behalf of banned members that person will be slapped or maybe banned. It also has always been the case that advertising Munches on other sites is not allowed. Hopefully, the new rule that KitKat.... not Mal! ... worded will make this issue crystal clear.
2. I have to say I find it worrying that to some it looks like those who shag mods get special treatment. If this is really how it looks, we need to think why that might be. I can state, hand on heart, without the shadow of a doubt that I personally have never given ANYONE special treatment if I have shagged them.... I can tell you that I have wholeheartedly voted in favour of banning members in the past whom I have considered personal friends cos they acted grossly against the site rules. I am actually offended if any of you think that I give certain people special favours. If anyone does think I am unprofessional in this way, please tell me... in private if you which. You may think I am biased, but I am sure that ALL of the mods act for the benefits of the site not for their own personal gain, or for the benefit of their shag buddies. Again, if you truly think this is untrue you need to say so! See, mods are in a a very difficult dilemma..... we are mods, yes, and that is a role we do voluntarily... but we also have friends on here, some of us have partners who are also members, and some of us have fuck buddies and are active advertisers on the site. Sometimes we HAVE to make a mod decision about one of our friends in a way that we can justify and which may be personally very difficult....
I ask you... how would you react if you were a mod and, for example, had to ban your partner for site abuse?
I could do it... could you...?
I am borg :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Anyways, what was the point again? Oh yeah........ that was it.... what is the actual point of this subject????
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sex God
Quote by postie
Why is Kaz, who last week was sexually assaulted, allowing banned members, one of whom is banned for sexual assault, access to every female who frequents her party? Unless she is planning a special badge for him and lettng everyone know who he is and what he is banned for.
Oh brilliant!
Did anyone warn her of that before threatening to ban her? Wouldn't warning her of the danger have been the decent thing for someone who was concerned about safety to do instead of threatening her? Did YOU warn her since you seem to have all the information? NO, you just came charging in with a stupid post as good as accusing her of deliberately inviting someone she knows to be dangerous. After what happened at Wigan, you cannot possibly believe she would do that in a million years!
So mister I know everything, why the hell didn't you warn her?
