[poll] forum posting worst practices

[popcorn2721]

This is something that I really don't understand. There are people who spend all day posting on the GB here about politics.

Politics.

On a sex forum.

Every damn day.

Do they go on politics forums and discuss their masturbation habits?

Personally, I'd ban them all purely for the staggering inappropriateness of everything they post here. They booted the white supremacists, how are the retarded rednecks spitting bile about Obama or whoever else any different?

You wanna moderate the GB?
You got my vote... Hell Ill even through in two aspirin for your trouble.

 

[sugaredwalls]

The political posting I get, we have a lot of hot button issues going on in our country right now. I don't get the cross dressing dude with his cock hanging out in his Av, with a thread titled something like "Jesus is our Lord and Savior". That's a bit of an enigma wrapped in a mystery to me.

 

[Eilan]

The political posting I get, we have a lot of hot button issues going on in our country right now. I don't get the cross dressing dude with his cock hanging out in his Av, with a thread titled something like "Jesus is our Lord and Savior". That's a bit of an enigma wrapped in a mystery to me.

His wife can suck cock and smoke at the same time. That's a God-given talent.

 

[satindesire]

The political posting I get, we have a lot of hot button issues going on in our country right now. I don't get the cross dressing dude with his cock hanging out in his Av, with a thread titled something like "Jesus is our Lord and Savior". That's a bit of an enigma wrapped in a mystery to me.

Christians have sex drives and kinks too. We're not the asexual, repressed, procreation-not-recreation people that the mass media enjoys portraying us to be.

 

[sugaredwalls]

His wife can suck cock and smoke at the same time. That's a God-given talent.

Open wide, pass the Marlboro's and praise Jesus!

 

[emap]

I don't think the GB will ever be moderated, it's there because otherwise the forums would be pretty empty. Same thing would happen if you start moderating it, the lit forums are so popular because of the GB. Besides, who would actually want to do it?

Besides the fact that it is General Board, in other words, unless there is a section covering what you want to say, it goes there, there is nowhere a mention that you can't talk politics or religion or well much of anything besides a few things like bestiality and pedophilia. Heck if it floats your boat you can go into the GB and start talking necrophilia. There was a thread about that very thing last week or week before, just R rated pictures but still.

I guess I should look at that praise jesus thread, though yeah a crossdressing man doing that. Isn't there something in the bible about not being allowed to do that?

 

[silverwhisper]

NM quoth:
yes and no. on a poorly moderated site, all deleting negative comments does is beget more negative comments.

i think we can both agree that poorly moderated sites are a dime a dozen, no? :> a well-run site, with sensible modding, is something of a rarity, IMX.

NM quoth:
when a poster is held accountable for their posts/actions, through the use of warnings, suspensions and banning, that is a totally different story. i am a moderator of a hobby site and we've had our share of individuals who think they have the right to post whatever they want, regardless of the age of the members and the focus of the site.

IMX, people always wanna talk about things that are off-topic. how long does it take any thread around how to to get derailed? 4 posts or less? :>

i tend to prefer a less is more approach re: modding: will explain below.

NM quoth:
being a hobby site we've restricted all posts and language to be PG-13 or better. many have complained that kids are going to hear profanity and see adult content regardless of the restriction. our stance is that we want to maintain the site to be user friendly to all ages so that parental guidance isn't necessary. there are plenty of sites out there that cater to profanity, ego maniacal bullies, porn, and just about anything else you want to experience. our little corner of the web isn't going to be one of them.

language/content restrictions based upon the intended audience--that i can understand and that makes sense: some folks just don't think through a post before hitting the submit button.

but that's also a separate animal from what i described, don't you think? :>

NM quoth:
we use three warnings before instituting a suspension for a period of time commensurate with the infractions. when suspensions don't work or the infraction is severe enough a permanent ban is put in place. we've had members who've been banned come back and offer sincere apologies that we've let back on to the site and never had another problem with them.

we've found the key is a good, simple set of rules that are well balanced and evenly moderated. the moderators work as a team and we're all active participants on the site, so we know our members and monitor all areas. without good moderation, a site is just another steamy pile of poo to endure.

my views re: forums are informed primarily by 2 sites. lit is the second influence; the first is a hobby site, a community that's been around now for over a decade in some form or other and has moved from either 3 or 4 different hosts in that time.

specifically, that hobby site is generally used by a lot of members as an online fight club, where argument, facts and logic rule the day. consequently, there's already considerable accountability for posts: if you can't back it up, you get reamed out--enough to make my fairly innocuous recent rejoinders in another thread look like praise.

and honestly, that kind of peer accountability is, to me, superior. perhaps it's simply my libertarian sensibilities or my contrary nature: when someone says to me "you can't", my natural reaction is to search for ways to say "i can". :>

but this wouldn't work at all forums--nor indeed most, i suppose.

ed

 

[silverwhisper]

eilan quoth:
a woman who dares to venture out of the women's forum or accidentally discovers the other forums first has to provide "spoon pics" or risk negative forum rep and being told to get back in the kitchen and other juvenile horseshit.

in that forum, are rep comments anonymous or attributed?

ed

 

[Eilan]

in that forum, are rep comments anonymous or attributed?

ed

Attributed.

 

[silverwhisper]

what's the proportion of female vs male users on that forum? cuz i'm thinking a coordinated rep bombing run might prove entertaining.

ed

 

[sugaredwalls]

Christians have sex drives and kinks too. We're not the asexual, repressed, procreation-not-recreation people that the mass media enjoys portraying us to be.

Lol, I didn't insinuate that but you have to admit, it's not everyday you see "Jesus saves" next to something that says "I want to be ass fucked by monster cock" Hee hee, "praise Jesus and pass the lube."

And also lol, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a good portion of Christian denominations are not gonna be that approving of a sex site like this, it's most likely going to fall in the "you're going to burn in hell for reading and looking at this smut" category.

 

[Eilan]

what's the proportion of female vs male users on that forum? cuz i'm thinking a coordinated rep bombing run might prove entertaining.

ed

It's a bodybuilding site with 1.7 million members, and I'd say the M to F ratio is at least as bad as, say, Lit Personals, and probably worse. Unless they're new and just don't know any better, most of the women stick to their little corner of the forum.

We'd definitely come off worse in a rep bombing! Not that I have enough rep power to make a difference. . .

 

[Eilan]

Christians have sex drives and kinks too. We're not the asexual, repressed, procreation-not-recreation people that the mass media enjoys portraying us to be.

I've kept up with that thread since it was started, and I'd have to say that the OP is exactly the kind of "Christian" that gives other Christians a bad name.

 

[emap]

I peeked into that thread, just the first page and well yikes. Maybe I'm way off but he seems to be the kind of christian who can do no wrong but thinks everyone else is going to hell.

 

[silverwhisper]

anybody feel like providing a link? now i'm curious.

ed

 

[VelvetDarkness]

[mini-hijack]Just out of interest Ed, how do you change the text on a quoted post from 'originally posted by' to 'quoth?'[/mini-hijack]

 

[silverwhisper]

velvet queried:
how do you change the text on a quoted post from 'originally posted by' to 'quoth?

in case anyone's looking for an example of what velvet means, look here. :>

it's simple, actually: it just requires a little familiarity with the bbcode, which is used by the forum software to format post contents. just as in wordperfect codes or HTML, there are a pair of commands, which are referred to as "tags". the syntax for these tags is simple:

[command]filler to represent text you want to format[/command]

this means that on whatever text appears between the [command] and [/command] tags, the specified formatting will be performed.

note: the following examples will employ the { and } brackets rather than the [ and ] brackets. if i didn't do that, you wouldn't see the commands and hence the example would prove useless. :>

example 1:
{u}flowers for algernon{/u} was an amazing read!
using the proper [ and ] brackets would produce the title of that book in italics.

example 2:
WT{b}F{/b} is wrong with your hearing?!
using the proper [ and ] brackets would produce only the "f" character in bold, thereby indicating that emphasis is only on the word "fuck". in this case, the fact that "WT" remains outside the brackets was a deliberate and conscious decision.

example 3:
{i}are you joking??{/i}!
using the proper [ and ] brackets would produce that text in italics, along with the 2 ? characters--but not the ! character, which is outside the brackets. incorrectly enclosing/excluding characters from the formatted content can make you look silly: be forewarned. :>

bbcode uses the quote tag to indent the desired text and produce that different colored background that we're all familiar with. now me, i tend to find that the "originally posted by" bit is ugly and redundant. me, i prefer a more custom approach.

the bbcode that i write to produce that effect looks like this:
{quote}{b}velvet{/b} queried:
fillerfillerfiller.{/quote}

does that answer your question? :>

ed

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Velvet tested Ed's theory:
testing.

testing x

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Woot!

Thanks hon.

 

[silverwhisper]

my pleasure! :>

[awards velvet her own trout]

ed

 

[satindesire]

I've kept up with that thread since it was started, and I'd have to say that the OP is exactly the kind of "Christian" that gives other Christians a bad name.

I don't know anything about the guy, so I can't really knowledgeably comment to his reputation. I was merely stating the fact that not all Christians were sexually repressed, sort of as a side note.

In my opinion, the bible starts and ends with Jesus saying "Love thy neighbor" and the ten commandments. Everything else are stories. The bible was written, changed and rewritten so many times that I won't base my life on a bunch of archaic rules like "Don't wear makeup" and "don't eat shellfish". However, just because there is a bunch of archaic and ridiculous stuff in there doesn't mean I don't admire and adhere to the rules that make up a good moral compass. I don't have to follow every single one of the bible's rules blindly to be a good Christian. Like I said, that's just my opinion.

Also, any "christian" that would say "you're going to burn in hell for blah blah blah reason" doesn't have a brain cell to rub against. No one can send us to hell but God, and any just and loving God wouldn't send us to hell for eating lobster and having our ears pierced.

Sorry to hijack. Just rambling.

 

[emap]

anybody feel like providing a link? now i'm curious.

ed

Oh fine just don't look for it.

I did have to go to page two but still you lazy sod.

[trout smacks silverwhisper]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=603875

That's for page one so you can read up on it, it's a fairly long one that I so am not opening again.

 

[Eilan]

anybody feel like providing a link? now i'm curious.

In addition to the link that emap posted, you should check out this thread. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't.

Oh, hell. The responses are funny, at least!

 

[emap]

OH MY GOD!!!!! You need a better warning there Eilan, I'm laughing so hard I can barely breath and I only looked at the first page.

So now that I have stopped laughing, if you have a guys in lingerie fetish or just like looking at that, DO NOT LOOK. I'm all for him being able to do that and everything but lord please not here.

I can't figure out which is funnier, the fact he supposedly put it in the wrong section, I rather doubt he did, the responses he got on the first page alone, no idea what Alt is thinking, or the look of him and his wife in the pictures.

If you are seriously pissed off, or just needing a good laugh, do look it's priceless.

 

[sugaredwalls]

In addition to the link that emap posted, you should check out this thread. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't.

Oh, hell. The responses are funny, at least!

LMAO, maybe Jesus was a cross dresser, he did go around in that funky robe all the time.