Why was Mlle Rouge banned?

[HazelGod]

I still think that there is an issue as to why pro rata proportionally more women members seem to attract the ire of the Mods.

Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that, with the exception of Aconitum, this place is policed entirely by a squad of gay men?

I don't think her banning resulted from something she said to me. My thinly veiled criticisms of the mods as a team are refrring to something someone else said to me and got away with....she and I clashed a few times, but nothing was said by either of us that was out of line.

Despite your past interactions, it wasn't anything combative against you, TomCat...Red had warned/advised you not to respond to or engage with a certain insipid fool, earnestly endeavoring to spare you her earlier fate. The poor, defenseless little creature got butthurt about it, cried to his friends, and the geniuses at the reigns construed that to be harassment; and in a move that strains the very notion of lacking common sense, they decided to permanently expel one of the most significant contributors to this site in favor of one of the most asinine.

 

[TomCat84]

Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that, with the exception of Aconitum, this place is policed entirely by a squad of gay men?



Despite your past interactions, it wasn't anything combative against you, TomCat...Red had warned/advised you not to respond to or engage with a certain insipid fool, earnestly endeavoring to spare you her earlier fate. The poor, defenseless little creature got butthurt about it, cried to his friends, and the geniuses at the reigns construed that to be harassment; and in a move that strains the very notion of lacking common sense, they decided to permanently expel one of the most significant contributors to this site in favor of one of the most asinine.

Ah, I think I remember that post. I don't interact with luka a lot, and any interactions have been friendly.

 

[Bbucko]

I'm not surprised in the least that you'd have posted this. Nevertheless, I stand 100% behind what I said.

I haven't used the chat room for quite some time Bbucko as any of the regular users can confirm and I really don't know what you're talking about when you say I attacked you, verbose is a word I use myself and being rather verbose myself I would never ridicule anyone for the use of long words unless it were the friendly sort of teasing, the 'oooh verbose, did we eat a dictionary this morning', kind of teasing. I recall you using the chat room, I have an excellent memory and I do not recall in any way this attack you mention, on the contrary when you have entered the chat room I have made a special effort to try to include you in the chat (as I do with anyone new to the room who attempts to join in), I can only assume that your already formed opinion of the chat room predisposes you to find any form of friendly banter an attack.

If I've had a go at anyone I step up and admit it, I categorically deny that I attacked you in any way.

 

[Bbucko]

Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that, with the exception of Aconitum, this place is policed entirely by a squad of gay men?



Despite your past interactions, it wasn't anything combative against you, TomCat...Red had warned/advised you not to respond to or engage with a certain insipid fool, earnestly endeavoring to spare you her earlier fate. The poor, defenseless little creature got butthurt about it, cried to his friends, and the geniuses at the reigns construed that to be harassment; and in a move that strains the very notion of lacking common sense, they decided to permanently expel one of the most significant contributors to this site in favor of one of the most asinine.

I believe that you have summed up what happened as precisely and succinctly as possible, my friend. MR's banning represents a major loss to this place.

 

[luka82]

Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that, with the exception of Aconitum, this place is policed entirely by a squad of gay men?



Despite your past interactions, it wasn't anything combative against you, TomCat...Red had warned/advised you not to respond to or engage with a certain insipid fool, earnestly endeavoring to spare you her earlier fate. The poor, defenseless little creature got butthurt about it, cried to his friends, and the geniuses at the reigns construed that to be harassment; and in a move that strains the very notion of lacking common sense, they decided to permanently expel one of the most significant contributors to this site in favor of one of the most asinine.

Lord!
:yawn::yawn::yawn:

Ah, I think I remember that post. I don't interact with luka a lot, and any interactions have been friendly.

I can smell the fire, run boy, run!:biggrin1:

I believe that you have summed up what happened as precisely and succinctly as possible, my friend. MR's banning represents a major loss to this place.

:smokin:

 

[Guy-jin]

Again, HazelGod and Bbucko seem to have the issue pegged in my eyes.

After reading the thread in question (specifically this post: http://www.lpsg.org/191618-shes-stoned-7.html#post2865261), Luka82 directly threatened Red with a banning. That, to me, is clearly against the TOS (right where it says not to threaten people). Yet he got away without so much as a warning as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) and she got exactly what he threatened her with.

That makes it look like he has some mods on his side, giving him favorable treatment by letting him break the rules while they enforce strict rules on other people (who happen to be breaking them by "harassing" him).

I'm not one of these anti-chat people. The chat room regulars are fine in my book, including flame boy, who's also a moderator on the forum. Is it possible that there was some overstepping of bounds inadvertently, though? The chat room regulars here appear to all be united in one thing: Hating Red. Does that include a moderator or two? If so, is it not possible that said dislike manifested in this banning? I certainly think it is. But please, SP/Patch/whoever come swan your way out of chat for a sec and flame me for saying so. :tongue:

Mods are human too, and there's a very real chance whoever did this, be it one or all of them, didn't realize they were enacting a double standard when they punished her for harassing Luka82, but not Luka82 for threatening her.

Regardless, I believe in letting people work out their own problems rather than slamming down the ban hammer, especially in uneven, inconsistent ways.

By the way, if anyone in that thread deserves a spanking, it's faceking. I'm astounded that fuck-truck is still allowed here. Talk about inconsistent moderating. Trinity may have been a complete douchebag, but faceking is and always has been worse. I figured he got away with it in part because of his "big tits on a thin body" thread, but that can only take you so far, can't it? :tongue:

 

[luka82]

Again, HazelGod and Bbucko seem to have the issue pegged in my eyes.

After reading the thread in question (specifically this post: http://www.lpsg.org/191618-shes-stoned-7.html#post2865261), Luka82 directly threatened Red with a banning. That, to me, is clearly against the TOS (right where it says not to threaten people). Yet he got away without so much as a warning as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) and she got exactly what he threatened her with.

That makes it look like he has some mods on his side, giving him favorable treatment by letting him break the rules while they enforce strict rules on other people (who happen to be breaking them by "harassing" him).

I'm not one of these anti-chat people. The chat room regulars are fine in my book, including flame boy, who's also a moderator on the forum. Is it possible that there was some overstepping of bounds inadvertently, though? The chat room regulars here appear to all be united in one thing: Hating Red. Does that include a moderator or two? If so, is it not possible that said dislike manifested in this banning? I certainly think it is. But please, SP/Patch/whoever come swan your way out of chat for a sec and flame me for saying so. :tongue:

Mods are human too, and there's a very real chance whoever did this, be it one or all of them, didn't realize they were enacting a double standard when they punished her for harassing Luka82, but not Luka82 for threatening her.

Regardless, I believe in letting people work out their own problems rather than slamming down the ban hammer, especially in uneven, inconsistent ways.

By the way, if anyone in that thread deserves a spanking, it's faceking. I'm astounded that fuck-truck is still allowed here. Talk about inconsistent moderating. Trinity may have been a complete douchebag, but faceking is and always has been worse. I figured he got away with it in part because of his "big tits on a thin body" thread, but that can only take you so far, can't it? :tongue:

LOL. Jesus! LOL
That was not a threat. That was a friendly advice!
At that time I felt if she stopped on time there would be no sanctions for none of us. Knowing her temper, I tried to help.
But that was in the past.
I will NOT take the fault for her ban people!
She brought this on her own. I will not say something I`ll regret later, I will NOT bash her here where she can`t defend herself. But I feel she could have prevented her ban.
And Guy I feel very sorry if you see THAT as a real threat.
I even felt sorry for her, for the perma ban.
And I don`t know what games you are trying to play Guy, but that is not a threat. So please don`t try to define what I wanted to do.

 

[Drifterwood]

Again, HazelGod and Bbucko seem to have the issue pegged in my eyes.

After reading the thread in question (specifically this post: http://www.lpsg.org/191618-shes-stoned-7.html#post2865261), Luka82 directly threatened Red with a banning. That, to me, is clearly against the TOS (right where it says not to threaten people). Yet he got away without so much as a warning as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) and she got exactly what he threatened her with.

I just read the thread, Guy. I didn't read it as though Luka was threatening a ban, rather that the name calling, in his opinion, could lead to a ban.

Why you needed to get involved, Luka, I don't know. That is the Moderators job. If it was bannable for calling someone a troll, then there wouldn't be many people here surviving 2000 posts.

This whole situation strikes me as completely dumb and I have this sick feeling of deja vue. Trollish thread sucks in people who care about the real issue, they get banned, our loss. Repeat.........

 

[luka82]

Why you needed to get involved, Luka, I don't know. That is the Moderators job. If it was bannable for calling someone a troll, then there wouldn't be many people here surviving 2000 posts.

Edit- I never had an issue with her if she called someone a troll, I was speaking in general in that post.
Sorry Drift, I misuderstood your post, so I had to edit it.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

There seems to be a division in this thread between the people who are mainly frequenters of the forums and the people who are mainly users of the chat room. When people make a post on the forums they are aware that there is a permanent record there that other people will observe, they have to take the time to formulate their post - in other words by its nature it can make them pull their punches, when you look at MR's posting history you can probably get an idea how inflammatory she can be when she's not holding back.

The tone of some of the posts on here suggests she's been subject to attacks and baiting, that there's some sort of conspiracy between the chat people and the moderators and she's been banned when she was really the victim. Zoe, Patch, Luka and indirectly I have been accused of baiting her when in fact she was the persistent baiter, the initiator and the one who perpetuated any unpleasantness. Conspiracy theories are thick on the ground on this site but this one doesn't hold water does it, everyone in the chat room is a horrible evil mean attacker and the woman well known for making rather strong forum posts is a poor put upon defenceless creature? You have only to look at the posts on here from the chatters to know that she wasn't well liked in that room where she displayed her true colours. Most comments, even when being as positive as possible, have reservations or qualifications so are we all in on this conspiracy ;-)

Guy Jin - where have I flamed anyone on this thread, indeed where and when have I ever flamed anyone on this site who didn't richly deserve it, as I mentioned before its been several months since I've used the chat room and I have no interest or stake in it, however I'm quite sick of seeing a few hardened supporters refuse to believe that MR wasn't the subject of some sort of mob attack and that she was the one who caused problems. The moderators must be well aware of her history in that room.

It's been said she will be a loss to this site, I'm sure the many people who she attacked for no reason wouldn't think so.

Bbucko, you mention that I attacked you in the chat room, I'm afraid it's clear that its not your own axe you're grinding there. Why wait 18 months (it must be at least that length of time since you were in there) to mention an attack you nearly complained about. You can persist in bleating that MR shouldn't have been banned, you didn't observe her best work.

Now this really should be laid to rest.

 

[798686]

Despite your past interactions, it wasn't anything combative against you, TomCat...Red had warned/advised you not to respond to or engage with a certain insipid fool, earnestly endeavoring to spare you her earlier fate.

You are joking, right?

Rouge was using it as an opportunity to take another potshot at Luka, as she often did. If in this case she was genuinely providing a public service (which I believe is unlikely) you can't blame people for assuming she was upto her usual tricks.

She had no reason to get involved with Luka on that thread (much as Luka needn't have chipped in to TomCat, imo).

I think there was fault on both sides, but MR's action seemed more in breach of her previous warnings.

 

[Gillette]

SP, I'm curious how you reconcile characterizing someone's comments as "bleating" while maintaining that you don't flame people. I'd hardly consider that "richly deserved".

Whether you currently use chat or not is irrelevant. It was your primary haunt and you have ties to the people you regularly interacted with. You can't claim to be unbiased.

 

[midlifebear]

SP, I'm curious how you reconcile characterizing someone's comments as "bleating" while maintaining that you don't flame people. I'd hardly consider that "richly deserved".

Whether you currently use chat or not is irrelevant. It was your primary haunt and you have ties to the people you regularly interacted with. You can't claim to be unbiased.

Well put, Gillette. As for the speculation of the other posters, I thought poor Mlle Rouge was banned because she had an uncanny inability to pick the right shoes to go with her outfits -- or just fits. But I'm an old man. What the Hell could I possibly know? :redface:

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

If you consider that a 'flame' Gillette I wonder which internet you've been using all these years ;-) One of the definitions of bleat is to talk foolishly, Bbucko clearly has no real idea of how unpleasant MR can be therefore I consider him to be bleating.
I can claim to be unbiased, I have supported people in the chat room I disliked, I have censured (although that it too strong a word) people I liked. My post history speaks for itself Gillette, I'm not one of the people on here who will join in haranguing someone just because everyone else does, I do not make random hostile posts, I often tried my best to stop an attack on someone who was new and perceived as being a bit of an interloper. I'm all about fairness. I have had a go at people many many times, I have never had a go at anyone who didn't deserve it.
In a previous post Bbucko accused me of something which I didn't do, I think I reacted in the mildest of ways.

 

[TomCat84]

Well put, Gillette. As for the speculation of the other posters, I thought poor Mlle Rouge was banned because she had an uncanny inability to pick the right shoes to go with her outfits -- or just fits. But I'm an old man. What the Hell could I possibly know? :redface:

We can't all look as fabulous as you in a Wonder Woman outfit :tongue:

 

[midlifebear]

We can't all look as fabulous as you in a Wonder Woman outfit :tongue:

Don't blame me. Blame my stylist!

(Actually, blame the guy who is in the photo. He was a contendeh [sic] on Project Runaway.)

 

[MickeyLee]

would be kinda nifty to see the names of the folks reporting Ms. Maddie Rouge.

cuz if the same names showed up over and over again, it's be pretty obvious that some people were using the report option for.. umm.. passive aggressive harassment.

i mean there's already been proof of , and a few banishments resulting from, members altering chat logs in an attempt to get Maddie Rougue busted by the Mods. i mean, that's not consipracy theory.. that's "water is wet".. not many other ways to spin truth on proof positive.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Or if the same names showed up time after time she'd been harrassing the same people time after time?
And for the record I've never complained about MR.

 

[MickeyLee]

would depend on the what was being reported and the folks involved in the thread/post being reported.

say, like if, Maddie Rouge was duking it out typeset wise with "Randompenisshot". if "Randompenisshot" reported her, to be expected and not at all damning... but if "Randompenisshot" didn't report Maddie to the Mods and User1 thru User 8 were there to report, without any prior involvement in the thread with "Randompenisshot" then you could totally see how User 1 thru User 8 were trying to manipulate a Report History against Maddie Rouge

i wasn't slinging any shade your way, Ms. SP. promise.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Oh I didn't think you were ML, I just wanted to put a different view on it, if you look at this thread as a whole you'll see the forum people and the chat people have a different perspective and I do hope it's realised that we might have a better idea of how MR interacted because of the immediacy of response in the chat room.
Yes one member did falsify chat logs but that member had been on the sharp end of her tongue for weeks and weeks, I don't condone that but the member in question was having her enjoyment of the chat room totally spoiled.