"We're not a chat room...."

[James Blandings]

Re: "Phrrrnnnttt"

....by the way, is the lighthearted sound of a fart in your general direction, James.

Thank you for noting our collective views on the sticky.

If the words in that closed, locked "thread" are indeed indicative of the way you'd like this place to be, kknow that for many here, you are simply not walking the walk but are merely talking the talk.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will see that and react accordingly, from simply not posting, to leaving, to taking the time to point out you are being a silly small minded hypocrite.

So, note that, and either:

1. continue to do as you please...in which case, you have no right or sway to criticise others at any time.... at least not from any position of respect or authority as a leader....or

2. draft something that is more reflective of the true nature of this Forum, its ebbs and flows....and Moderate to those parameters in a clear and unambiguous way...or

3. simply strip the sticky down to the 5 Thou Shalt Nots and leave it at that....because

4. as you've said, being a Moderator here is nothing more than a word... your only official function is to skim the threads for illegal words that could get the owners in trouble.

You can take that as you see it, but it's written from a supportive standpoint with the Forum in mind.

I for one will continue to post to any thread I find interesting, regardless of who is there and what they've said...because I believe that all opinions and inputs here should have equal access, validity and receive their due.

Cheers;

Lance

I have told you before, and I will state again. I see no reason to change the sticky in order to appease a small number of malcontents, when it is obvious that the board functions fine for 99% of it's members as things stand now.
This position has been laid out in plain language for you before, and your options made clear. If you wish to be supportive of the forum, I suggest that you contribute more on substantive issues and concern yourself less with pseudo-legalistic nitpicking.

 

[James Blandings]

Re: Re: Re: Perse, adding to the thoughts of JamesBlandings....

Ok, I lied. One more post.

Don't you find that "posting in the spirit of friendliness" a rather lofty goal? Civility and good manners is at best is the most you can expect or require.

I post my opinions. I do not post to be liked or to gain/curry favor with anyone. I do not attack or belittle other people nor to I put up with those who I perceive are trying to attack or belittle me.

Friendship is my choice to extend or withhold. If others feel differently fine. But I reserve the right to be civil, instead of giving warm and fuzzy feelings to strangers. If a person finds me not to their liking, I think I can live with that.


Ebony <now I am done>

Well, what's wrong with lofty goals?
My point was not that everyone could be, or even should be friends. My point was that if people come to this board looking for hostility, that is likely to become a self fulfilling prophecy. If they would, on the other hand, read with an assumption that unless proven otherwise, the posters here are open to friendship and sharing, the forum as a whole, and the individuals involved will all be better off.

 

[James Blandings]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cym

Keeping people from posting here has been your stock-in-trade when you're not baking chocolate starfish brown-nose brownies for those who say what you want to hear, darling.

Whatever happened, for example, to that woman newbie whose view it was that this BDSM Forum was a "big fantasy" ?

Shall we go have a look at how all you kind sharing gals, welcome-wagon sunshine beaming out of your butts, going about the business of "educating" people.... treated her?

Wake up and smell the PrepH, babe.

That's why it happens to you, by the way....another mystery solved!

Do not adjust your halo; difficulties originate on the Network.

You're funny;

Lance

Would you please be so kind as to provide me with a link to this alleged abuse? I don't recall such a thing ocurring, but it may have been while i was away.

 

[mskittykatt]

this leadership thing

we've been spinning our wheels for way to long now, and i'm leaning towards ignoring these issues altogether because it's a waste of time and energy to even consider possible solutions when people would rather fight.

there are people demanding this leadership that *I* don't think was exclusive in the beginning.

there are "leaders" that have been asking the people demanding fair and strong leadership what exactly they have in mind.

in the beginning this forum belonged to everyone who was interested in BDSM. when questions arose as to the buisness end of things,
'what to do with the original thread', please help with the personal adds etc. they were brought up for discussion for anyone who cared to join in.
a lot of the talk after getting our own section out of the how to section were discussing how to handle the buisness end of things

all this has been clouded with personalities and other issues that need to be stripped away before any of the buisness of day to day running the BDSM forum can be addressed.

i think KM has a point - although it's pretty lame. people can't seem to let the moderators have a personality outside their job here. i don't think that *has* to be so.
i was chastised for a post in a thread i created fairly early on by one of the moderators who has since become a joy to read and learn from. After i took responsibility for my words and intentions, made them clear and went (through) past the anger and hurt feelings and seperated the job and point being made, from the personalities involved

i'll have to agree unfortunately that at for some people, the two - moderator and person, can't be seperated at this late stage.
since we aren't tied into some super computer that will scan our posts for words like, kiddie porn and such - we'll have to deal with the personalities behind the moderator, and the moderator behind the personalities.

i have to support Zipman, think about what you want to say before you say it, act of your own power - rather then react to someone else's opinion/personality and address the issues not the outside variables that get thrown in the way.

 

[Sandia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cym

No one is trying to keep anyone out of this forum. You are free to post here or not as you wish.
Your complaint about the sticky is noted.

1. I know that.

2. You know I'm not really complaining about the sticky, right?

Merely trying to puncture some illusions about this forum.

I mean, if y'all wanna be inclusive and welcoming, fine. If you wanna be exclusive and hostile, fine.

But you can't expect to bash newbies and pat yourself on the back for how welcoming you are and have nobody say anything about it.

***
Having gone back and looked at the posts since James':

Caroline, I reject any association with Lance. He's his own person. I'm mine. If you have bad feelings from having been attacked in this forum, then perhaps you can imagine mine.

Btw, Lance has been attacked in this forum too, more bitterly and viciously than anyone else.

***
On the moderators: I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The mods are just people here like anyone else. They're not the "leaders" except to the extent people buy into that concept. The rest of you can buy into it if you want. I won't.

Personally, I feel like putting that role on them is too much of a burden - even if they have sought it out.

They're entitled to state their opinions, feel insulted, lash out, etc., just like anyone else. They're not entitled, though, to have their opinions taken more seriously just because they're mods.

 

[James Blandings]

Actually, Caroline, in this instance Sandia is correct. You've never felt it. The moderators have never discriminated against you for something you've posted or said. I would hazard to guess that you feel perfectly free to post whatever you like in this forum without the slightest concern that the moderators might delete, edit, or otherwise remove what you've said. Not all of us feel that free about posting.

James, it's a little disheartening to see you address this problem--and it is a legitimate problem--with "Might I suggest then, that the solution to our troubles is for everyone concerned to take steps to try to enhance the level of friendship here?"

Step back for a moment and look at the complaints levied against you. Really look at what Sandia is saying. Lance is one thing, the man is an egomaniac with an agenda. Sandia is quite another. His motives are quite obviously to air his feelings, not to cause dissension or stage a coup. It would behoove you to listen to him. It would be more in order for you and the rest of the moderators to get together and discuss why he feels this way. This is not an autocracy.

The moderators, whether they wanted to or not, have established a position of leadership here. They did so by explicit and implicit statements about how unique this forum is and how they'll protect it. They did so by expressing an opinion and signing it BDSM forum moderator. They did so through the mother thread. But mostly, the moderators have established a position of leadership by developing a vision for the forum and enacting it. They established a position of leadership and like or not, that will color them for their duration as moderators. The moderator position has no inherent weight. I am a moderator at the ORP and everyone treats me the same as a regular. Why? The ORP mods have established no position of leadership. I am a moderator at the SDC, but I am not a regular poster. I have established a position of leadership.

You may not like it, but you're not regular posters here. I think that even if you resigned the moderator position you'd still not be just a regular poster. You've established yourself as forum leaders. Because you've done that you will always have dissenters and people like Lance who challenge your authority. You will also have people who have grievances that need to be addressed.

Perhaps it might be wise for the three of you to get together and decide some sort of protocol for dealing with grievances in order to keep this forum running smoothly. You're good people and there's no reason why good and reasonable people cannot come together to solve problems for the benefit of the forum. DramaKings notwithstanding.

Does this make any sense?

If Sandia's complaint were a new one, I would agree with you that my response was irresponsibly glib and unreceptive. But it is not a new problem, it is a dead horse that he has dragged out again. I understand if he feels that the issue of Moderator behavior raised over and over again by Lance makes it pertinent again, but I disagree.
He has voiced his greivance before, both in public and private, and if there is anything more to be gained by repeating the whole discussion, I don't know what it is. I like Sandia, and I think he has a lot to contribute. If I could make him happy, I would, but I just don't think there's anything to be done.

Let me make something clear. We do NOT delete people's posts, we only move those which are clearly in violation of the forum rules which were approved by the siteowner, and we only edit in order to enforce those same rules. I have edited exactly one post since I became a Mod and that was to correct the inadvertant posting of another member's personal information.

I respect your opinion, KM, but unless someone actually shows me that there is a real problem, not just personal bad feelings, at play here, my attitude is "if it ain't broke" don't fix it. If you would like to further illuminate problems you see, I would be more than happy to consider your views.

 

[MissTaken]

Are W/we having fun yet?

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cym

Would you please be so kind as to provide me with a link to this alleged abuse? I don't recall such a thing ocurring, but it may have been while i was away.

I didn't use the word "abuse"...you did, James.

Sure, I'll dig up the link, as soon as you show me that 99% satisfaction data you rolled out just above here....

Lance "Waiting for Hell to Freeze Over" Castor

 

[Lancecastor]

Does anybody but me feel that one of the reasons that the GB runs so well is that it's unmoderated?

I feel like you....except I'm not as soft and curvy.

Lance

 

[Lancecastor]

"I've only edited this one post"

I would agree with you that my response was irresponsibly glib and unreceptive.

Lance makes it pertinent again.

I like Sandia. If I could make him happy, I would.

We do NOT delete people's posts, we only move those and we only edit . I have edited .

I respect your opinion, KM, I would be more than happy to consider your views.

Fun fun fun;

Lance

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cym

Lance has been attacked in this forum too, more bitterly and viciously than anyone else.

Thank you, thank you very much....damn, I wish I was a masochist sometimes....

Lance

 

[KillerMuffin]

If Sandia's complaint were a new one, I would agree with you that my response was irresponsibly glib and unreceptive. But it is not a new problem, it is a dead horse that he has dragged out again. I understand if he feels that the issue of Moderator behavior raised over and over again by Lance makes it pertinent again, but I disagree.

What I saw on this thread was a legitimate complaint voiced by a genuine forum member. I also saw a moderator blow him off and then add that this is not a genuine concern, rather it's a dead horse. Why is it a dead horse? Was it ever addressed? Was an agreement or compromise or anything ever reached? Or was it more of a this-is-the-way-it-is-if-you-don't-like-it-leave sort of thing?

There are a few things I don't like about this forum and this attitude is one of them. New people should change a forum with their presence, they should add to it with their questions, answers, and personalities. Some of these people do not feel welcome. I know this because they've clearly stated it. A forum that remains static is stagnant. The resistance to change here is palpable.

Here is a clearly delineated problem. The "ain't broke" one. Of course, to you it's probably not a problem, it's probably the way it should be.

"This forum is negative and unwelcoming to people who don't conform with the values of pure skin-to-skin BDSM."

You and conformists say it isn't, others that aren't conformists say that it is.

One of the problems is how you define a "problems." It's obvious there's a problem if Lance is getting this kind of support. Of course, you don't think it's a problem, it's just a chance for people to grab the spotlight. If I read your post correctly.

You need a way for people to air their grievances and have them seriously addressed because this isn't a minor problem, this is a divisive problem that's going to perpetuate the cycle of flaming until it is taken care of.

That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. This is my opinion and it's an unwelcome one. You don't want to hear any criticism of you, your forum, or your values. I have no wish to cause a rift in this forum because I don't have enough investment in this forum for it to matter. See, I'm one of the non-conformists.

Yeah, I know. "If you don't like it here, KM, why don't you leave?"

The answer is easy, cause this isn't a dictatorship and I can affect change just like the next joe.


Misskitty, we're human beings. Once someone has been established as a "leader," and they have been, they are not a mere mortal anymore. Mere mortals, being human beings like we are, cannot easily compartmentalize people, they see them only as one person. It's the way things are and the only thing we can do is try to understand what we're doing in order to change it for the better.

 

[tassie]

my god you lot need to get out more.

im back home with a decent computer, but i STILL feel hungover from friday. i had a great time, and get to pick up my ratty babies from their rat sitter tomorrow. i have missed them.

love ya blue (but you ARE NOT getting your hands on my backside no matter how many times you tell me to trust you cos you're a medical man!)

 

[WriterDom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cym

I didn't use the word "abuse"...you did, James.

Sure, I'll dig up the link, as soon as you show me that 99% satisfaction data you rolled out just above here....

Lance "Waiting for Hell to Freeze Over" Castor

Yeah, we need a poll!

 

[mskittykatt]

...Misskitty, we're human beings. Once someone has been established as a "leader," and they have been, they are not a mere mortal anymore. Mere mortals, being human beings like we are, cannot easily compartmentalize people, they see them only as one person. It's the way things are and the only thing we can do is try to understand what we're doing in order to change it for the better.

KM - i want to be clear i am not talking directly to or about you in my response. i am not volunteering for debate here, i only want to respond because it seems what i said wasn't clear enough.

my original post was only my opinion and experiance in this matter.
i am not a part of any crowd, or on either side of the flame wars going on.
i think the key in Km's response is ...cannot easily compartmentalize people...
it wasn't in fact easy for me either. my feelings were hurt and i was angry at being told not to speak where/when i did about what i did.
i got over it. i looked for the reasoning behind it, not the person, and decided that although i didn't particularly agree, i didn't particularly disagree either and what i said could be said in any number of places, there's no need to fight for my right to say it here!
as for that's how things are... i didn't argue, in fact i agreed. i just believe it doesn't *have* to be that way.
(if one man can do it, it can be done. if it can be done, i can do it.)

i would love to see this resolved and similar things handled without so much conflict - however i also know that isnt' always possible or in fact the best approach to any given situation.
i choose not to involve myself greatly in all the fights - in this case i had something to say. *shrug*

 

[zipman]

What I saw on this thread was a legitimate complaint voiced by a genuine forum member. I also saw a moderator blow him off and then add that this is not a genuine concern, rather it's a dead horse. Why is it a dead horse? Was it ever addressed? Was an agreement or compromise or anything ever reached? Or was it more of a this-is-the-way-it-is-if-you-don't-like-it-leave sort of thing?

There are a few things I don't like about this forum and this attitude is one of them. New people should change a forum with their presence, they should add to it with their questions, answers, and personalities. Some of these people do not feel welcome. I know this because they've clearly stated it. A forum that remains static is stagnant. The resistance to change here is palpable.

Here is a clearly delineated problem. The "ain't broke" one. Of course, to you it's probably not a problem, it's probably the way it should be.

"This forum is negative and unwelcoming to people who don't conform with the values of pure skin-to-skin BDSM."

You and conformists say it isn't, others that aren't conformists say that it is.

One of the problems is how you define a "problems." It's obvious there's a problem if Lance is getting this kind of support. Of course, you don't think it's a problem, it's just a chance for people to grab the spotlight. If I read your post correctly.

You need a way for people to air their grievances and have them seriously addressed because this isn't a minor problem, this is a divisive problem that's going to perpetuate the cycle of flaming until it is taken care of.

That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. This is my opinion and it's an unwelcome one. You don't want to hear any criticism of you, your forum, or your values. I have no wish to cause a rift in this forum because I don't have enough investment in this forum for it to matter. See, I'm one of the non-conformists.

Yeah, I know. "If you don't like it here, KM, why don't you leave?"

The answer is easy, cause this isn't a dictatorship and I can affect change just like the next joe.


Misskitty, we're human beings. Once someone has been established as a "leader," and they have been, they are not a mere mortal anymore. Mere mortals, being human beings like we are, cannot easily compartmentalize people, they see them only as one person. It's the way things are and the only thing we can do is try to understand what we're doing in order to change it for the better.

Great post KM! I think she articulates some very good "reasons."

 

[James Blandings]

Does anybody but me feel that one of the reasons that the GB runs so well is that it's unmoderated?

At any given moment the first page of the General Board likely contains at least several threads in regard to who hates Redwave and why PP Man is an idiot, one or two in which people are hissing and spitting at each other over one political issue or another, an obnoxious troll or two, and often a thread in which a new poster is raked over the coals for their choice of user names or a minor spelling error in their introductory post.
The reason it seems to run so well is because it has so many posters and moves so fast that it is much easier for people to pick and choose which threads to read and which posters they wish to ignore.
I do not believe the moderators are the problem here, if I did I would not only step down, but unsubscribe.

 

[James Blandings]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cym

I didn't use the word "abuse"...you did, James.

Sure, I'll dig up the link, as soon as you show me that 99% satisfaction data you rolled out just above here....

Lance "Waiting for Hell to Freeze Over" Castor

As usual, you are all mouth with nothing backing it up. That's all right, someone else pointed me to the thread you were apparently referring to, and rather than prove your claims that newcomers are harrassed, it clearly illustrated your own penchant for attempting to disrupt the board and create dissention.

 

[Rubyfruit]

There are a few things I don't like about this forum and this attitude is one of them. New people should change a forum with their presence, they should add to it with their questions, answers, and personalities. Some of these people do not feel welcome. I know this because they've clearly stated it. A forum that remains static is stagnant. The resistance to change here is palpable.

Articulated beautifully.

I'll be honest, I come here and lurk but have never felt very comfortable posting. I might have more real-life scene experience than many of the regular posters, but since I don't ascribe to BDSM completely in my sexuality now, I was afraid I wouldn't be welcome.

I think there should be more room for differences here. People are different. People relate on different levels, sometimes several times a day even.

 

[James Blandings]

What I saw on this thread was a legitimate complaint voiced by a genuine forum member. I also saw a moderator blow him off and then add that this is not a genuine concern, rather it's a dead horse. Why is it a dead horse? Was it ever addressed? Was an agreement or compromise or anything ever reached? Or was it more of a this-is-the-way-it-is-if-you-don't-like-it-leave sort of thing?

There are a few things I don't like about this forum and this attitude is one of them. New people should change a forum with their presence, they should add to it with their questions, answers, and personalities. Some of these people do not feel welcome. I know this because they've clearly stated it. A forum that remains static is stagnant. The resistance to change here is palpable.

Here is a clearly delineated problem. The "ain't broke" one. Of course, to you it's probably not a problem, it's probably the way it should be.

"This forum is negative and unwelcoming to people who don't conform with the values of pure skin-to-skin BDSM."

You and conformists say it isn't, others that aren't conformists say that it is.

One of the problems is how you define a "problems." It's obvious there's a problem if Lance is getting this kind of support. Of course, you don't think it's a problem, it's just a chance for people to grab the spotlight. If I read your post correctly.

You need a way for people to air their grievances and have them seriously addressed because this isn't a minor problem, this is a divisive problem that's going to perpetuate the cycle of flaming until it is taken care of.

That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. This is my opinion and it's an unwelcome one. You don't want to hear any criticism of you, your forum, or your values. I have no wish to cause a rift in this forum because I don't have enough investment in this forum for it to matter. See, I'm one of the non-conformists.

Yeah, I know. "If you don't like it here, KM, why don't you leave?"

The answer is easy, cause this isn't a dictatorship and I can affect change just like the next joe.


Misskitty, we're human beings. Once someone has been established as a "leader," and they have been, they are not a mere mortal anymore. Mere mortals, being human beings like we are, cannot easily compartmentalize people, they see them only as one person. It's the way things are and the only thing we can do is try to understand what we're doing in order to change it for the better.

I made clear in my first response to you that Sandia's complaints were addressed. Apparently, he was not satisfied with resolution of his complaint, and I submit that is because he does not seek satisfaction, but wishes to nurse a grudge. If there is anything that would make him happy, short of exiling people he doesn't like, I have no idea what it is, and he has not been forthcoming with any realistic suggestion.
I have posted on several occasions, asking new posters who feel they are being made to feel uncomfortable here to contact me. The only complaints I have received are from Lance and Sandia. On the other hand, I get a constant stream of PMs asking me if there is anything I can do to stop Lance's disruption, many of them from those very newbies that he is claims he is defending. Until it is shown to me that anyone other than the current complainers are unhappy with the rules of the forum, I will maintain that this is a non-problem blown up into a controversy solely for the sake of attention getting. You speak of the support for Lance, but I don't see much support for him. Most of the posters who voice their enjoyment of his posts have said they do so not in agreement with him, but because they enjoy the entertainment value of his posts. Even Sandia has distanced himself from Lance.
The name of this forum is BDSM Talk, not Fantasy Role Play. When there have been problems between pretend players and RL BSDMers here, it has almost invariably been because the make believers have chided the RL people for not living up to their fantasy ideals. The last thing the internet needs is one more fantasy BDSM site. What is of value here, is the ability of real people to discuss real issues as they affect their real life. Rather than chase away newcomers, we ought to welcome the chance to share experiences with them. And, overwhelmingly, that's what we do. There are new entrys in the new faces thread every day. How many of them have voiced a complaint about being made unwelcome, either on the board, or privately to the Moderators? I am not hearing them, and if anyone has them, I urge them to voice them to me.
What shall we do? The only way we can make these 2 or 3 dissidents happy would be to amend the sticky to read "This board is for the support of female submissives. We encourage the abuse of newcomers and we believe that male Doms should not be troubled by having to listen to the opinions of mouthy subs." And even that would not appease the complainers. They would be back a day or two later with a new gripe.
So what would you have us do? Enforce a double standard of rules based on a poster's proclaimed orientation? Allow potentially hazardous erroneous information posted by pretenders with no real experience to stand unchallenged? Ban anyone who Lance thinks is "mouthy"?
Even were we to agree to the absurd demands of the complainers, I think you will agree with me that there is little chance Laurel would agree to creating such rules for this forum.
Until proven otherwise, I will continue to maintain that there is not a problem with the sticky, nor the conduct of the Moderators in performing their duties, and I do not support any efforts to change the way this board functions.

 

[James Blandings]

Articulated beautifully.

I'll be honest, I come here and lurk but have never felt very comfortable posting. I might have more real-life scene experience than many of the regular posters, but since I don't ascribe to BDSM completely in my sexuality now, I was afraid I wouldn't be welcome.

I think there should be more room for differences here. People are different. People relate on different levels, sometimes several times a day even.

There are many posters here who do not "ascribe to BDSM completely" In fact, I am not even sure what that would entail. Most of the posters, I suspect, are still in the formative phase of their discovery of the role BDSM plays in their lives. I have not seen any evidence that they have been harrassed or made unwelcome because of it. If you would like to let me know what has made you feel this way, I would be more than willing to hear you out.

 

[Rubyfruit]

You know James, I think it's been about the rules for me. They lead me to believe, or gave me the feeling that, the board was fairly controlled. Nit-picky maybe. I mean, what's wrong with the chatty threads? They're not my cup of tea, but obviously lots of people like them. Why isn't their room for everybody here? As far as I know, Laurel isn't having any bandwidth shortage.

Why move a personal ad? I don't think the board would be deluged with them. I see maybe one a day on the BG, and you know how much traffic that gets. Maybe somebody will give a smart ass answer about the personal boards being "that away" or maybe it won't get any response at all. But sometimes, a thread like that can turn into something with entertainment value if some of our more clever members wonder in.

 

[zipman]

<snip>

Until proven otherwise, I will continue to maintain that there is not a problem with the sticky, nor the conduct of the Moderators in performing their duties, and I do not support any efforts to change the way this board functions.

Forgetting about the sticky for a minute, does this mean that you "will not support any effort to change the way this board functions" even to make it better? I think you have been a bit dismissive towards the mere idea that there is anything wrong here. It is not just one person, and it is not one group of people. There are issues, and while I have no problem posting my thoughts and feelings, I have encouraged others to contact you with their thoughts on this.

There have been times I have I feel there are certain prejudices within our own community. "You're not Dom enough, You're not sub enough, real life is better than on-line" etc. etc. People make judgements all the time up here.

Do I like this forum - yes!
Could it be improved - yes!

Would you like to see it improved - ahhhh, that's a good question!

Zip

 

[James Blandings]

You know James, I think it's been about the rules for me. They lead me to believe, or gave me the feeling that, the board was fairly controlled. Nit-picky maybe. I mean, what's wrong with the chatty threads? They're not my cup of tea, but obviously lots of people like them. Why isn't their room for everybody here? As far as I know, Laurel isn't having any bandwidth shortage.

Why move a personal ad? I don't think the board would be deluged with them. I see maybe one a day on the BG, and you know how much traffic that gets. Maybe somebody will give a smart ass answer about the personal boards being "that away" or maybe it won't get any response at all. But sometimes, a thread like that can turn into something with entertainment value if some of our more clever members wonder in.

Ruby, thank you for your constructive response.
Risia wrote a very good post explaining what was meant by the "this is not a chat room" portion of the sticky. I will try to do as well as she did. There is nothing wrong with the chatty threads, I have said before that in my personal opinion they create the cameraderie that allows sharing to flourish on the more serious topics.
What is not needed here is chat room conventions, the "subbie couch", submissives being expected to ask permission to give their view, to post giggly descriptions of themselves cyber sitting at the pretend Doms feet, beginning their posts by going >>>curtsey<<<.
The problem with it is that , in my experience in other venues, is that the playactors will relentlessly take over, and stifle any discussion of real issues. It is a lot easier to sit and type "Forsooth LordDomlypants, might your wench fetch me my new whip" a hundred times a day than it is to seriously address the issue of the limitations of safe words for example. Like in most things, the quick and easy tends to push out quality.
As for personal ads, I have seen several areas set up for serious BDSM discussion swamped by them as well. Keep in mind that all but the most popular threads will disappear off the first page of the GB in anhour or less, but a thread with even one or two replies can sit on the firt page here for a day or two.Given the number of persoanl ads we remove now, it is certainly possible that if we did not have a policy against them, they couls come to dominate the forum. If there were not a readily accessible personals area available on this same site, I would be more sympathetic towards them, but after all, we are not deleting them, but only moving them to the appropriate area.

 

[James Blandings]

Forgetting about the sticky for a minute, does this mean that you "will not support any effort to change the way this board functions" even to make it better? I think you have been a bit dismissive towards the mere idea that there is anything wrong here. It is not just one person, and it is not one group of people. There are issues, and while I have no problem posting my thoughts and feelings, I have encouraged others to contact you with their thoughts on this.

There have been times I have I feel there are certain prejudices within our own community. "You're not Dom enough, You're not sub enough, real life is better than on-line" etc. etc. People make judgements all the time up here.

Do I like this forum - yes!
Could it be improved - yes!

Would you like to see it improved - ahhhh, that's a good question!

Zip

Thank you for your reasonable question and thoughtful remarks, Zipman.
I would love to see this forum just get better and better, but I know of no substantive suggestions for structural or functional change that would advance that goal. But, I am willing to give a hearing to any serious suggestions, if such exist. I apologize if my statement seems so closeminded.What I will not support is any changes to the forum rules that would sanctify empowering some members over others, or limit the freest possible speech by all members.