Wake Up Moderators!

[ready182]

There seems to be alot of political content "accidently" placed in our Lounge. If you could move it to the appropriate forum at your earliest convenience, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

[+ Lucky]

God forbid! The next thing you know someone will post an innocent thread about Montreal in the Lounge, instead of the strip club forum.

Man the barricades!

[ready182]

Lucky - if the thread had stuck to the gay Marriage issue, and not iced the cake with Bush-bashing, I would not have objected.

 

Still Ready

[+ Lucky]

I am just playing with you, ready. I am not sure why it matters, but as long as we have distinctions established for forums, you certainly have a right to ask that they be observed with consistency.

[ready182]

Lucky, I just wish you would play with me more often ...

[Rick Munroe]

>There seems to be alot of political content "accidently"

>placed in our Lounge.

 

"A lot"? If you want to refer to the thread I began about moveon's petition against the marriage amendment, why not just directly say so? And yes, it is "our Lounge" and the marriage amendment is something that affects all of "us" here. That's probably why nobody else has a problem with that being posted here.

[Rick Munroe]

>Lucky - if the thread had stuck to the gay Marriage issue,

>and not iced the cake with Bush-bashing, I would not have

>objected.

 

There was no Bush-bashing in my post. Merely mentioning what he does is now considered bashing?

[+ deej]

Oddly enough, there hasn't been a single alert about any political content.

 

Not one.

 

Zip.

 

Nada.

 

You want action? Send an alert.

 

If you NOTICED objectionable content, you were already IN the topic of your discontent, where alert was one click away. However, you'd rather make a spectacle of complaining in public.

 

Rock on! But don't expect a moderator to "wake up" and go reading every frigging post trying to divine what the hell you're complaining about.

[VaHawk]

"Rock on! But don't expect a moderator to "wake up" and go reading every frigging post trying to divine what the hell you're complaining about."

 

Is that how the "editing" function works also? Are posts only edited if an alert is received, or is it at the discretion of the individual moderator, and as such subject to their personal whims, which appears to often be the case?

[+ deej]

>Is that how the "editing" function works also? Are posts only

>edited if an alert is received, or is it at the discretion of

>the individual moderator, and as such subject to their

>personal whims, which appears to often be the case?

 

Moderators will edit that which they feel requires editing, should they bump into it, because people bitch if we just delete (which is actually easier).

 

If you have complaints, feel free to send an alert (which we all see as soon as we check email) or send an email to [email protected] (which he may or may not see this century and it may or may not take precedence over the hundreds of other whiny emails he gets daily).

[SoCal]

>>and the marriage amendment is something that affects all of "us" here<<

 

 

Rick - isn't it a bit of assumption that it affects "all" of us??

[Rick Munroe]

>Rick - isn't it a bit of assumption that it affects "all" of

>us??

 

You're right; I always forget that we have international readers. I should have said that it affects those of us who are Americans.

[Doug69]

>Moderators will edit that which they feel requires editing,

>should they bump into it, because people bitch if we just

>delete (which is actually easier).

 

No, this is quite false. It is far from uncommon for moderators, including yourself, to delete posts in theire entirety rather than edit them, even when the "offending" part of the post is one small fraction of what was written.

 

>If you have complaints, feel free to send an alert (which we

>all see as soon as we check email) or send an email to

>[email protected] (which he may or may not see this

>century and it may or may not take precedence over the

>hundreds of other whiny emails he gets daily).

 

TRANSLATION: "If you don't like what I do in editing or deleting your posts, go fuck yourself. If you have objections to how the rules are applied here, you're just "whining." If you want to complain, complain to Hooboy, who won't read what you write and even if he does, won't do anything about it."

 

Why is it again that more people who participate here are unwilling to contribute money even though they are tempted to do so? Might it have anything to do with attitudes like these?

[+ deej]

>No, this is quite false.

 

Re-read what I wrote. Frequency was not mentioned.

 

>TRANSLATION:

 

Exactly! You're catching on.

[Doug69]

>>TRANSLATION:

>

>Exactly! You're catching on.

 

Unlike Hooboy's pleas for contributions, which - as he frequently points out - are not catching on. While I wouldn't say that you are entirely to blame for this, I would attribute roughly 80% of the blame for his failure in this regard to the imperious and piggishly rude manner with which you and your fellow moderator (but mostly you) exert your petty authority.

 

So the next time you selfishly celebrate your indifference to the views of others, you may want to consider the impact you are having on poor Hooboy's bank account. Then again, if you were the type of person who thought about the impact of your behavior on others, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

[+ Lucky]

Well, I agree with Doug about the arrogance and condescension of the powers that be to us mere mortals, but I doubt that the thought of improved contributions will change anything. Hooboy doesn't really ask often, and, he usually is content to have a donation made to an AIDS charity.

 

P.S. Wake up, Barry!

[Barry]

>P.S. Wake up, Barry!

 

Awwww You still love me Lucky. :*

 

Barry

[eastbayguy]

>Oddly enough, there hasn't been a single alert about any

>political content.

>

>Not one.

>

>Zip.

>

>Nada.

>

>You want action? Send an alert.

 

Oh yes there have. I've sent at least half a dozen myself.

 

--EBG

[+ deej]

>roughly 80% of the blame for his failure in this regard to the

>imperious and piggishly rude manner with which you and your

>fellow moderator (but mostly you) exert your petty authority.

 

Oh, Douggie, if we really wanted to be piggish and rude your posting privileges would have been revoked LONG ago.

 

Give us credit for a LITTLE restraint. :*

[+ deej]

>>Oddly enough, there hasn't been a single alert about any

>>political content.

>>

>>Not one.

>>

>>Zip.

>>

>>Nada.

>>

>>You want action? Send an alert.

>

>Oh yes there have. I've sent at least half a dozen myself.

>

 

When? And for this forum? (I didn't spell it out but that's what I meant.)

 

Going back 30 days, I count around 10 total. Two are from HooBoy, one is from me, and at least four are from Rick Munroe and a couple from other escorts. I don't see a single one from you.

[eastbayguy]

>Unlike Hooboy's pleas for contributions, which - as he

>frequently points out - are not catching on. While I wouldn't

>say that you are entirely to blame for this, I would attribute

>roughly 80% of the blame for his failure in this regard to the

>imperious and piggishly rude manner with which you and your

>fellow moderator (but mostly you) exert your petty authority.

 

In order for contributions to catch on, the powers that be are going to need to develop a few simple, social graces and some manners. I contributed twice, about a year apart. There were clear instructions posted online, which I followed. The charity indicated a notice was passed to the operators here. A gracious thank you plus an unexpected set of tickets arrived from the charity. All I've ever received from the operators of this system is a direct insult hurled at me for being a non-contributor.

 

You want contributions? Then be nice to the users, develop some manners and show a little love to those who contribute. Meanwhile, I'm permanently over any need to chip in.

 

--EBG

[+ Lucky]

"at least four are from Rick Munroe"

 

I'll bet Rick was hall monitor in grade school!

[Rick Munroe]

>"at least four are from Rick Munroe"

>

>I'll bet Rick was hall monitor in grade school!

 

The alerts I've sent have mostly been about my own posts: asking to have the thread about the marriage amendment pinned to the top, asking for Devon's real last name to be deleted from my thread about him, and then, upon Devon's request, asking for it to be put back in (and noting that that would be the last time I would be dealing with that post!). So, no, I wasn't hall monitor; I was just the kid who raised his hand a lot and helped other kids with their homework.

[buckguy]

I'd be more interested in moderators paying more attention to trolls like this and tedious wingnut tactics like whining about the presence of political content (only when it isn't there's).

[VaHawk]

>I'd be more interested in moderators paying more attention to

>trolls like this and tedious wingnut tactics like whining

>about the presence of political content (only when it isn't

>there's).

 

Now this a prime example of how the misuse of the English language can lead to confusion and an expression of "WTF" are you talking about?

 

Who are the trolls that are being referenced? What the hell does "only when it isn't there's" alluding to? Or perhaps, we're all just "loosing" our minds?

 

Regardless, it appears to be, way off the point being discussed. Aren't message board/chat rooms, etc. by nature fantasy worlds? I can't imagine any fantasy world more boring than one that is only inhabited by "good little fairies" singing "On the Good Ship Lollipop"! Anyone who is a devotee of fantasy literature, knows that there wouldn't be much of a story without the trolls, dwarfs, elves, ogres and evil wizards!