Is it time also to vote on new moderators?

[catalina_francisco]

LOL, given the amount of kafuffle our decision to actively seek a new librarian has created, perhaps we should have just let it stay as is in a dormant state!!

Catalina

 

[doveofserenity]

This is exactly why I do not like having to dealing with cliques. Any one will always subscribe to thinking that they are better than the next.

Do me a favor please, doveofserenity. Name them for me. I don't even care if it is public or in PM. Send me the names and the heads up on who is who of these cliques you speak of, please. I just would like to have this information so I can contact, verify, and then put them all on my blocked list.

Sin, first off; i never said i was better than anyone else on these boards! Secondly, people come on here and make groups of friends that they feel more at ease or "in common" with.

Just because that group of friends "cliqued"- as in had things in common with each other, is no reason to put them down and make them feel like they are worthless.

All i said was that there were "cliques" or groups of friends that i wouldnt want to be part of...is because of what i see of how they describe themselves is not something that i feel is any part of me. And thats not saying it in a bad way towards those groups, but only in a way that is not something that interests me.

And since that is my personal opinion, i refuse to say names; because that is just being petty. i don't iggy the "cliques" i am not involved with; i just go my own way.

And by the way, i am not a narc. i will not give anyone the "Heads up" on anything that is none of their business.

i speak the truth when i speak, and not out of anger or jealousy.

So if that bothers you, fine; i don't care. Iggy me. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Netzach]

That is true of most, but also is open to interpretation of posters and sometimes leads to feelings of segregation and cliques becoming more of a focus than the community feel we have enjoyed at times...I just go on what feedback I get and try and keep things reasonably smooth without descending into trying to do the impossible of making everything perfect and everyone friends. I am really touched by the support you and others have given us.

Catalina

That's true. I think people like me who lean more toward the GB sensibility of "people have a right to be offensive and you have a right to call them out on being offensive, but nobody has a right to shut anyone up" probably only provide feedback at times like this. And If I really loved the GB that much I'd post there, frankly there are only so many bipartisan slugfests that I can stand before getting bored.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

This is exactly why I do not like having to dealing with cliques. Any one will always subscribe to thinking that they are better than the next.

Do me a favor please, doveofserenity. Name them for me. I don't even care if it is public or in PM. Send me the names and the heads up on who is who of these cliques you speak of, please. I just would like to have this information so I can contact, verify, and then put them all on my blocked list.

I'm in a clique - a clique of me, myself and I. Fugitall - I "talk" to the people who interest me at a given moment, don't to the ones who don't. Some people I respond to a lot, some I never respond to, because they haven't said anything that tickles my funny bone, or is so elegantly stated (whether I agree with it or not) that I just have to respond, or that I feel a need to respond to it.

This is a freakin' discussion board. It's a free-speech discussion board. That means people come here to talk about things that they want to talk about, and other people respond (or not) as they choose. Just because I do or do not respond to a person's post doesn't mean that person is in or out of my "clique" - it means I choose (or don't) to respond to it because I make that choice.

If you "contact, verify, and then put <them all> on [your] blocked list" everyone who might be part of a clique or cliques on this board, I'm afraid you'll find very few posts to read. It's human nature to form groups/friendships/cliques! of like-minded people; thus, while I am the aforementioned clique of mm&I, I am also part of the NFL pool clique, the word-games clique(s), the smartass clique, the sadist clique, the "Let's Help Each Other Get Healthier" clique (though I've been kind of lax in supporting that one lately), and numerous others. Wanna block me because I'm a member of a clique or eighteen? Be my guest. It won't diminish my participation in, or enjoyment of this board - only your exposure to my priceless wit and wisdom.

 

[Netzach]

I'm in a clique - a clique of me, myself and I. Fugitall - I "talk" to the people who interest me at a given moment, don't to the ones who don't. Some people I respond to a lot, some I never respond to, because they haven't said anything that tickles my funny bone, or is so elegantly stated (whether I agree with it or not) that I just have to respond, or that I feel a need to respond to it.

This is a freakin' discussion board. It's a free-speech discussion board. That means people come here to talk about things that they want to talk about, and other people respond (or not) as they choose. Just because I do or do not respond to a person's post doesn't mean that person is in or out of my "clique" - it means I choose (or don't) to respond to it because I want to make that choice.

If you "contact, verify, and then put <them all> on [your] blocked list" everyone who might be part of a clique or cliques on this board, I'm afraid you'll find very few posts to read. It's human nature to form groups/friendships/cliques! of like-minded people; thus, while I am the aforementioned clique of mm&I, I am also part of the NFL pool clique, the word-games clique(s), the smartass clique, the sadist clique, the "Let's Help Each Other Get Healthier" clique (though I've been kind of lax in supporting that one lately), and numerous others. Wanna block me because I'm a member of a clique or eighteen? Be my guest. It won't diminish my participation or enjoyment of this board - only your exposure to my priceless wit and wisdom.

Actually just ask anyone here how often they post on the Playground or GLBT or GB and holy shit, we're all a clique. Not that none of us actively participate elsewhere, but hardly MOST of the diehards here do as much. And frankly if my first post to a post on the playground talking about people in MN meeting up who knew each other well was "gee sorry I can't go" I think that is a socially weird moment, so shoot me.

 

[Homburg]

There's a sadist clique?

I feel so left out....

 

[intothewoods]

Actually just ask anyone here how often they post on the Playground or GLBT or GB and holy shit, we're all a clique. Not that none of us actively participate elsewhere, but hardly MOST of the diehards here do as much. And frankly if my first post to a post on the playground talking about people in MN meeting up who knew each other well was "gee sorry I can't go" I think that is a socially weird moment, so shoot me.

Yeah, I think you are right to say the BDSM forum is one big clique. Er, if that's what you were saying. When you first start posting here, it does feel like what the hell are these people talking out -- when you read some of the inside jokes. And then that still happens to me on some days, but I don't think it's malicious.

Fwiw, I was also put off my JM's linking when I first encountered his posts, because on other boards, overly argumentative posters often link to everything and anything as part of developing their proof. I think I unfairly put him in that category on an unconscious level. Anyway, he's not overly argumentative, and I don't think he's condescending or arrogant either.

 

[snowy ciara]

I thought that was what the thread had suggested we do.... the OP, that first post?? So, that was what I did... and part of the reason WHY, too. Maybe i misread it.

I thought the OP was suggesting asking for new mods altogether. Not adding to what we have. The bit you quoted was actually a response to something Netz said. You didn't misread anything. I think. (This is turning out to be one of the major twisty and turny threads.) But maybe I forgot to quote something. I'll have to go back and look in a bit and fix it if I did. (I'm procrastinating right now, you see, trying to get up the ambition to go grade papers.)

My original suggestion was not ditching what we have, but maybe adding a third.

I'm going to get to work now, I promise... or something...

 

[Netzach]

Yeah, I think you are right to say the BDSM forum is one big clique. Er, if that's what you were saying. When you first start posting here, it does feel like what the hell are these people talking out -- when you read some of the inside jokes. And then that still happens to me on some days, but I don't think it's malicious.

Fwiw, I was also put off my JM's linking when I first encountered his posts, because on other boards, overly argumentative posters often link to everything and anything as part of developing their proof. I think I unfairly put him in that category on an unconscious level. Anyway, he's not overly argumentative, and I don't think he's condescending or arrogant either.

My first exposure to lit BDSM was the topopolis thread. This softcore to the noobs thing = new. I don't mean to be resident old kvetch, but honestly I found people talking about stuff in a way that was so fresh, offensive, raw and real that I was scared to say anything for a few hours, but kept on reading.

 

[Netzach]

There's a sadist clique?

I feel so left out....

Dude, you have rope girls flinging panties at you far and wide. Don't fuck with a rock solid marketing image.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Basically mods are only supposed to move threads which are SPAM, alert admin to breaches of rules in signatures, edit posts which contain email addresses or other personal details not permitted, and move inappropriate threads to their correct forum. It is not a big job in actively moving or editing, but requires time to scan everything or as much as possible which is often aided by observant posters using either the report thread/post feature or PMing us about anything they think might need attention.

Thanks Cat for explaining the job of moderators here. Up until now, I had no idea what it entails, even thought I was vaguely conscious that you and Marquis were doing this job. And thanks to both of you for your work.

Two points:

1) Considering the above 'job description', I am personally quite satisfied by the job done by Marquis and Cat. I have no idea why Cat's personal opinions and believes are being held against her in this case. She's ranted on the amount of 'personal threads' and cliques forming -- so what? Did anyone see those threads disappearing because Cat doesn't appreciate them? I have disagreed more than once with Cat and our disagreements go to the core of our respective beliefs -- but I haven't witness one instance where this has affected how she has treated me (or others she disagree with) in her capacity as moderator.

2) Whether or not you agree with my first point, it seems to me that Etoile has made it very clear twice already that the process to change mods is dealt with at the admin level. Why are we still discussing it here???

 

[h_i_s]

I thought the OP was suggesting asking for new mods altogether. Not adding to what we have. The bit you quoted was actually a response to something Netz said. You didn't misread anything. I think. (This is turning out to be one of the major twisty and turny threads.) But maybe I forgot to quote something. I'll have to go back and look in a bit and fix it if I did. (I'm procrastinating right now, you see, trying to get up the ambition to go grade papers.)

My original suggestion was not ditching what we have, but maybe adding a third.

I'm going to get to work now, I promise... or something...

I was referring to the Librarian thread there snowy. Yeah it can get confusing. I had to reread too..

 

[DeservingBitch]

There's a sadist clique?

I feel so left out....

You can get in my clique. So far, there's me, my cunt, and my imaginary friend. And we have a really cool hand-shake thing going on.

 

[h_i_s]

Sin, first off; i never said i was better than anyone else on these boards! Secondly, people come on here and make groups of friends that they feel more at ease or "in common" with.

Just because that group of friends "cliqued"- as in had things in common with each other, is no reason to put them down and make them feel like they are worthless.

All i said was that there were "cliques" or groups of friends that i wouldnt want to be part of...is because of what i see of how they describe themselves is not something that i feel is any part of me. And thats not saying it in a bad way towards those groups, but only in a way that is not something that interests me.

And since that is my personal opinion, i refuse to say names; because that is just being petty. i don't iggy the "cliques" i am not involved with; i just go my own way.

And by the way, i am not a narc. i will not give anyone the "Heads up" on anything that is none of their business.

i speak the truth when i speak, and not out of anger or jealousy.

So if that bothers you, fine; i don't care. Iggy me. Wouldn't be the first time.

No one said you said you were better.
I quoted your post because you brought up a subject, and I posted my opinion of the subject.. not of you.

I did not put anyone down in the post you have quoted me on.
I also didn't insult your friends (I don't even know who you would claim as your friends).
I haven't targeted anyone to make them feel worthless.

You went on about the subject of cliques in your post. I asked you who the cliques are. It's been an ongoing subject of the boards going back months ago....

I find it odd that people speak of cliques here in the BDSM sections. I've been here a long time. I don't see cliques. I want to know why others do. I want to know who they are because i think it's a load of bullshit.

Not exactly certain of why you are so freaked out at my asking.

Maybe it's because you can't answer the question.

PS

You read into things far more than you should. Assumptions do not equal fact.

 

[Homburg]

Fwiw, I was also put off my JM's linking when I first encountered his posts, because on other boards, overly argumentative posters often link to everything and anything as part of developing their proof. I think I unfairly put him in that category on an unconscious level. Anyway, he's not overly argumentative, and I don't think he's condescending or arrogant either.

JM has a certain tone that causes that sort of reaction, though I do no tthink it is intentional. Still, I've hit it myself, and taken umbrage at some of the things he's said. He then explained that he was not intending it, and I agreed. Since then I have made the conscious attempt to neutralise that tone when I read his posts.

 

[catalina_francisco]

My original suggestion was not ditching what we have, but maybe adding a third.

Personally speaking and given the amount of communicating and co-ordinating it takes 2 to get things done, I think 3 would be a nightmare...and to keep the balance thing going it would have to be a hermaphrodite switch of around 35-40!! LOL, now that could prove interesting.

Catalina

 

[Homburg]

Dude, you have rope girls flinging panties at you far and wide. Don't fuck with a rock solid marketing image.

Damned good point.

More panties is good. Heed me, ye rope girls.

----

You can get in my clique. So far, there's me, my cunt, and my imaginary friend. And we have a really cool hand-shake thing going on.

I can get in your clique? Well, hell, I'm there. As long as it doesn't interfere with the rope thing. Netzach is right.

And how flexible are your imaginary friend's shoulders? I've got some really hawt imaginary German 4-strand golden hemp that I've been dying to try out...

And the mind boggles at a secret handshake with a cunt that speaks french.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I can get in your clique? Well, hell, I'm there. As long as it doesn't interfere with the rope thing. Netzach is right.

And how flexible are your imaginary friend's shoulders? I've got some really hawt imaginary German 4-strand golden hemp that I've been dying to try out...

Super flexible. And cute too. Great ass. She's not goth though -- I hadn't discovered the appeal of goth girls when I made her up.

And the mind boggles at a secret handshake with a cunt that speaks french.

Dude, if you can't figure out how a cunt can shake your hand, I'm not sure you deserve to be in the clique...

 

[Homburg]

Super flexible. And cute too. Great ass. She's not goth though -- I hadn't discovered the appeal of goth girls when I made her up.

That's okay. I'm sure you can sweettalk her into fishnets and heavy make-up

Dude, if you can't figure out how a cunt can shake your hand, I'm not sure you deserve to be in the clique...

Darlin, it's not the handshake with the cunt part that piques my interest. It's the french-speaking part. So far, every cunt I've dealt with has been english speaking.

 

[doveofserenity]

For the sake of the BDSM Cafe and all friends of all people here, this bickering back and forth needs to chill out. Its getting old and making too many people angry.

So for my part, i have said my peace; and thats where i stand. And no other responses concerning any groups of friends, by anyone; will i respond to.

Enough is enough.

Have a good day everyone.

 

[Netzach]

That's okay. I'm sure you can sweettalk her into fishnets and heavy make-up




Darlin, it's not the handshake with the cunt part that piques my interest. It's the french-speaking part. So far, every cunt I've dealt with has been english speaking.

I don't know about Canada, but if you are both girls a brief kiss on each cheek.

 

[DeservingBitch]

That's okay. I'm sure you can sweettalk her into fishnets and heavy make-up

She's a little bit of a bitch when it comes to aesthetic suggestions, but I can try.

Darlin, it's not the handshake with the cunt part that piques my interest. It's the french-speaking part. So far, every cunt I've dealt with has been english speaking.

My cunt, imaginary friend and I are all fluent in english. I'm the one with the strongest accent.

 

[snowy ciara]

Hi Sinn!

No worries... I thought the original post in the library thread was for PMing suggestions, too, and I did, but then we got into open discussion and someone let the Drama LLamas in and here we are, several days later. Sorry for the confusion, but my brain's been kinda stuck on the part I bolded and purpled below!

Honestly I don't care if this is the "exclusionary clique" board where I am totally free to post "hey Etoile and snowy, let's have an exclusive three way" where moderators, even, God forbid are ALLOWED to say I'm an exclusionary dick and I am then able to point out that I'm not clannish, or if I am, whatever, deal and we can all fight like semi rational adults in charge of our own shit, cognizant that our ideas of fair and polite will differ.

I would care if the "Emily Post shit" as I referred to earlier begins to dictate what people can and can't say or react to things that are said much more.

There's no fucking place like free speech home.

Moderation should be and more or less is killing obvious spam, removing posts that violate TOS, moving some crap around.

I think people are really being crappy in assuming that things people post are always ex moderator cathedra, this always happens on a vanilla forum I'm on too. It literally has a "be nice" rule and, well, you can imagine what I think of that.

I don't get the be nice rules, either. The "no being an ass" rule at the other forum I'm at, I understand. But you know, half the time when someone messages me and asks me to look at a post and take action, my response is "That person is tactless, but not out of line. Please remember the TOS where you checked the box beside the phrase 'I understand that posting my work for critiques means I will get positive and negative feedback and I will not take it personally.' " It's true folks, I get more complaints about negative but not mean or out of line feedback in the critique forum. I've seen flame wars erupt on the OT and General Book Talk forums where no-one bothered to PM me.

 

[BiBunny]

I voted yes.

And not because of my personal opinions about the mods either way, or because I think we should have a "nice police."

Nobody on this board is going to say I'm nice. If I had to be "nice" to some of the dipshits on this board, I'd probably shoot myself. If I don't like you, I try to stay away from you, unless you post something truly stupid and/or offensive. I think the point about being "nice" was more a matter of "the reason people don't post contrary opinions sometimes is that a small, though extremely loud, minority don't know that there's a difference between 'debating' and 'arguing'" more than a matter of "let's make everyone be nice all the time." Hell, I love debates, but sometimes even I'd rather keep my mouth shut than go in circles with the same old harpies over and over and over.

Anyway, the reason I voted yes is this. I post on a really large horse-oriented message board. It's heavily moderated, which has caused a lot of problems. I lurk more than I post there, and when I do post, it's usually not anything of substance because that heavy-handed moderation is usually not very even-handed in its heavy-handedness.

The "main" mod on that board posted under her real name (yes, not the smartest move for her to make, obviously). She had links in her profile to her MySpace page and her personal website. The horse show world is a small one in many ways, and it didn't take a lot of people long to figure out exactly who she was. She wasn't my favorite person in the world, but I mostly just ignored her. However, she pissed a lot of people off with her favoritism, and they went off the deep end. They would call her bosses at work just to talk shit about her. They'd call her at work and at home to yell. I even think she got a few death threats. Can you imagine?

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, she and the rest of the mods resigned because they were sick of the crap. The board was unmoderated for a day or two, and then a new, mysterious mod came out of the woodwork. This mod's name is "admin," and nobody knows who the hell "admin" is. It's pretty obvious that the person is a regular poster, but under the mod's name, the person doesn't contribute to the discussion. The old mod got in fights under her "real" name and just obviously played favorites. "Admin" does not.

Anyway, in the last two weeks, this board has gone from a place where people intentionally post threads to provoke others into turning it into a trainwreck to a place where folks generally get along. I'm not saying the change in moderators had anything to do with it, but you don't see these thinly-veiled "let's see if we can pick fights and drag the mods in" threads.

I think the difference is not the new moderator, but the fact that he/she is an anonymous mod. Said mod is obviously a regular poster, but never gives any indication of favoritism with his/her posts in the "admin" name. If he/she has something to say that would "side" with one poster or group against another, he/she uses his/her "real" name. I think that cuts out a lot of problems, actually.

So, anyway, I made this long-ass post to say I voted yes because I think we should have anonymous mods. It might help keep the bullshit to a minimum.

 

[Netzach]

I voted yes.

And not because of my personal opinions about the mods either way, or because I think we should have a "nice police."

Nobody on this board is going to say I'm nice. If I had to be "nice" to some of the dipshits on this board, I'd probably shoot myself. If I don't like you, I try to stay away from you, unless you post something truly stupid and/or offensive. I think the point about being "nice" was more a matter of "the reason people don't post contrary opinions sometimes is that a small, though extremely loud, minority don't know that there's a difference between 'debating' and 'arguing'" more than a matter of "let's make everyone be nice all the time." Hell, I love debates, but sometimes even I'd rather keep my mouth shut than go in circles with the same old harpies over and over and over.

Anyway, the reason I voted yes is this. I post on a really large horse-oriented message board. It's heavily moderated, which has caused a lot of problems. I lurk more than I post there, and when I do post, it's usually not anything of substance because that heavy-handed moderation is usually not very even-handed in its heavy-handedness.

The "main" mod on that board posted under her real name (yes, not the smartest move for her to make, obviously). She had links in her profile to her MySpace page and her personal website. The horse show world is a small one in many ways, and it didn't take a lot of people long to figure out exactly who she was. She wasn't my favorite person in the world, but I mostly just ignored her. However, she pissed a lot of people off with her favoritism, and they went off the deep end. They would call her bosses at work just to talk shit about her. They'd call her at work and at home to yell. I even think she got a few death threats. Can you imagine?

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, she and the rest of the mods resigned because they were sick of the crap. The board was unmoderated for a day or two, and then a new, mysterious mod came out of the woodwork. This mod's name is "admin," and nobody knows who the hell "admin" is. It's pretty obvious that the person is a regular poster, but under the mod's name, the person doesn't contribute to the discussion. The old mod got in fights under her "real" name and just obviously played favorites. "Admin" does not.

Anyway, in the last two weeks, this board has gone from a place where people intentionally post threads to provoke others into turning it into a trainwreck to a place where folks generally get along. I'm not saying the change in moderators had anything to do with it, but you don't see these thinly-veiled "let's see if we can pick fights and drag the mods in" threads.

I think the difference is not the new moderator, but the fact that he/she is an anonymous mod. Said mod is obviously a regular poster, but never gives any indication of favoritism with his/her posts in the "admin" name. If he/she has something to say that would "side" with one poster or group against another, he/she uses his/her "real" name. I think that cuts out a lot of problems, actually.

So, anyway, I made this long-ass post to say I voted yes because I think we should have anonymous mods. It might help keep the bullshit to a minimum.

That is not the worst idea, actually. I don't think it HAS to be implemented, tout de suite, but I can see an upside to it for whoever is doing it.