To uphold the TOS or to control the content and character of the site?

[Incocknito]

Drifterwood's arsehole is gaping, mine is merely puckered.

 

[Mem]

It is the former for me, for what it's worth, but I think we are in danger of seeing the latter.

Sorry, I am talking about moderation.

Too late. The damage was done quite a while ago. This site is now a ghost of it's former self.

 

[Incocknito]

Too late. The damage was done quite a while ago. This site is now a ghost of it's former self.

Are a paranormal investigator? What fascination does this place hold for you?

You and your ilk must be e-sadists or something. You constantly bitch and moan about the site yet you continue to frequent and frequently create the same derisory threads/posts.

Change the record.

 

[Lex]

Yes, because your posts in this thread will certainly quell the concerns and kill the topic.

 

[Kotchanski]

Nice to see that in a thread dedicated to discussing the community, what it was, what it is and what it may become, we still can't behave like mature adults...

It really is no fucking wonder the mod forum is filled with childish complaints and demands for action when all could have been avoided by people growing up and moving on.

Seriously, cut it out and we might get some opinions worth listening to, but they aren't going to be heard if we have to wade through a bunch of school yard bollocks to find them.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

When Drifterwood says something, he means it, and it always comes after contemplation and reflection (unless he's possessed of the most astonishingly extemporaneous wit I've ever seen).

I'd bet on the latter.
Not denying that he does contemplate and reflect on things.

Jokes aside, if you become too draconian, you risk a reduction in the variety and bite of the content.

This is a real risk.
I think that one particular draconian punishment needs to be revisited.
The automatic, instantaneous and permanent banning of people for linking or mentioning sites which "defame this site or any of its members," a measure which includes "links or any other methods used to direct members to off site material that in any way defames the site or its membership," needs to be softened.
I think that such linking or mentioning can be done innocently, for one thing.
But more important, it casts too wide a net.
I don't see why the usual heads up, warning, temp ban, perm ban sequence cannot apply to this offence, as it does to most.
Even going to an abbreviated temp ban/permanent ban sequence would be a large improvement.
Perhaps the admins would like to speak to Rob about this.
I feel it results in more damage than protection to LPSG.

 

[Lex]

Nice to see that in a thread dedicated to discussing the community, what it was, what it is and what it may become, we still can't behave like mature adults...

It really is no fucking wonder the mod forum is filled with childish complaints and demands for action when all could have been avoided by people growing up and moving on.

Seriously, cut it out and we might get some opinions worth listening to, but they aren't going to be heard if we have to wade through a bunch of school yard bollocks to find them.

Great to see you post.

Given how quiet the moderator team has been given some posters' concerns, I am not sure that the general membership understands that they have any input into the site at all.

When you talk and all you get is silence, you tend to think you are being ignored or dismissed.

Just saying.

 

[Bbucko]

This is a real risk.
I think that one particular draconian punishment needs to be revisited.
The automatic, instantaneous and permanent banning of people for linking or mentioning sites which "defame this site or any of its members," a measure which includes "links or any other methods used to direct members to off site material that in any way defames the site or its membership," needs to be softened.
I think that such linking or mentioning can be done innocently, for one thing.
But more important, it casts too wide a net.
I don't see why the usual heads up, warning, temp ban, perm ban sequence cannot apply to this offence, as it does to most.
Even going to an abbreviated temp ban/permanent ban sequence would be a large improvement.
Perhaps the admins would like to speak to Rob about this.
I feel it results in more damage than protection to LPSG.

We all remember why that specific rule came to be, and all of us who contributed to the the place which cannot be named remember when it was both informative and interesting, in spite of rather than because of the second forum down on the homepage, as occasionally entertaining as that forum could be, too.

There were many posts (whole threads) devoted to the public shredding of this site and certain members even before it became the cyber equivalent to a cesspool of hate and mental illness. On more than one occasion, I remember that those people came over, defended both themselves and decisions made either in their name or on their behalf as part of the mod team. I actually learned some things and came to appreciate (if not always sympathize with) people whom I'd never really engaged with before; overall I found it a healthy thing most of the time.

Protest sites only work so well for so long, especially when they never learn to move on to something better. For a brief time that place did, until it was overrun with trolls and descended into the mess it is now. It's no longer anything but a den of babbling fools and I wish I could delete all the quality stuff I contributed there, but I can't: it's the price one pays for trying to live as openly as possible on the internet. The rule didn't seem vague or arbitrary at the time, though I think it showed that the other place was viewed as a much bigger threat than it actually poised.

I agree that the complete and total zero-tolerance of even a mention of a place now so devoid of reason and fact should be re-addressed. The recent banning of which you speak, even by the rules as they are understood to be right now, seems wrong and arbitrary and nonsensically applied. Perhaps there are key elements that I'm missing and about which I'll never learn but I just don't think they exist. All indications are that it was sudden and unilateral, which I guess is how things work here now: I've been clearly warned.

 

[Drifterwood]

Drifterwood's arsehole is gaping,

Then, kindly remove your head.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Protest sites only work so well for so long, especially when they never learn to move on to something better. For a brief time that place did, until it was overrun with trolls and descended into the mess it is now. It's no longer anything but a den of babbling fools .... The rule didn't seem vague or arbitrary at the time, though I think it showed that the other place was viewed as a much bigger threat than it actually poised.

I agree that the complete and total zero-tolerance of even a mention of a place now so devoid of reason and fact should be re-addressed.

I agree 100 percent.

The recent banning of which you speak, even by the rules as they are understood to be right now, seems wrong and arbitrary and nonsensically applied. Perhaps there are key elements that I'm missing and about which I'll never learn but I just don't think they exist.

I have no idea.

 

[AlteredEgo]

By proscribing certain kinds of use the ToS clearly indicate the character of the site, members contribute to that character and Mods insure that users do not use the site in ways which are contrary to that character.

I think this is how it would be in an ideal universe.

 

[Drifterwood]

I see it rather differently. The TOS do proscribe certain subjects and behaviours, but after that it is the membership who dictate the content and how it is discussed. For example, we could all post threads regarding our favourite puddings and then discuss our preferences and experiences in different styles and with varying levels of passion.

When you lose members such as NJ, MR, ML and Dolfie, the character and content of the site invariably changes because you lose their perspective and perhaps unique contribution.

 

[Drifterwood]

Nice to see that in a thread dedicated to discussing the community, what it was, what it is and what it may become, we still can't behave like mature adults...

It really is no fucking wonder the mod forum is filled with childish complaints and demands for action when all could have been avoided by people growing up and moving on.

Seriously, cut it out and we might get some opinions worth listening to, but they aren't going to be heard if we have to wade through a bunch of school yard bollocks to find them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aLWHGJLN7s&NR=1&feature=fvwp

:smile:

 

[luka82]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrddqV_oEAY

 

[B_subgirrl]

And you can thank me for that innovation. I suggested it way back as a way to recognise significant contribution to the site.

Maybe that's why you didn't get it :tongue:

So spank me :spankme:

:tongue: to you too! But I'd rather have the spanking myself, thanks very much :biggrin1: And thanks for the innovation too - good suggestion.

Hmmmmmmmmm...

As of this post you have logged in 1039 posts but have not yet achieved "Gold" status. Check with a mod or admin: it may be an oversight or it may signal a change in membership policy.

Hopefully an oversight rather than a policy change!

 

[Kotchanski]

Hopefully an oversight rather than a policy change!

No policy change with regards to the 1000post gold membership has been forwarded to the team, so I shall go and take a look at your account and see what's going on.

Sorry for not replying sooner, I apparently completely missed your earlier mention of the issue.

 

[luka82]

I see someone has become GOLD!!!!!
Congrats

 

[Kotchanski]

No policy change with regards to the 1000post gold membership has been forwarded to the team, so I shall go and take a look at your account and see what's going on.

Sorry for not replying sooner, I apparently completely missed your earlier mention of the issue.

There was a policy change back in April after the 1000post gold membership offer was abused by some members. While 1000 posts does still grant you gold membership, it doesn't kick in until you've been a member for a period of 90days.

This change was made in the hopes that we'd see less individuals joining simply for the gallery/cam chat and posting 1000 posts of gibberish to gain access.

I completely forgot about this change and can only apologise for the confusion. It took a while to find the discussion held, during which time I had already manually given subgirrl her gold membership.

Again, sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

 

[B_subgirrl]

I see someone has become GOLD!!!!!
Congrats

Thanks :smile:

There was a policy change back in April after the 1000post gold membership offer was abused by some members. While 1000 posts does still grant you gold membership, it doesn't kick in until you've been a member for a period of 90days.

This change was made in the hopes that we'd see less individuals joining simply for the gallery/cam chat and posting 1000 posts of gibberish to gain access.

I completely forgot about this change and can only apologise for the confusion. It took a while to find the discussion held, during which time I had already manually given subgirrl her gold membership.

Again, sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

Thanks for your help Aconitum :smile:. The policy change makes a lot of sense.