The Uninvited

[Bart]

Two reasons I suggested it Zip, if you have not made a convincing argument in two posts, you are not going to change any one's mind in ten posts, if anything you will lose people. Many times once posting by individuals exceeds a couple of times it becomes a two person conversation which frankly could be handled by emailing privately and have your own conversation off-line and keep the rest of us out of it. This way there is an end, no one trying to get the last word in until a moderator has to close it. Again if you wish to pursue the arguement do it off-line through the system with private messages. You do not need to have a valid email on line here to leave messages for a poster.

 

I swear to God that sometimes when these things escalate we all tune in to see who takes the next swing so we can gossip about it, like a bunch of old hens.

 

A few computer controls might help ease the burden of the moderators because the system cuts it off. Posters do not usually get personal with their remarks until the 5th or 6th post.

 

Now you will have the last word on my comments because I stick to my two remark limit.

[+ ArVaGuy]

I’m also very glad to see that the MC is back up and running again. I firmly believe that a variety of personalities make for a vibrant message center. Consequently I hate to see anyone permanently banned.

 

However, it’s amazing how one or two individuals can suddenly plunge a message board into unmitigated chaos. It’s incumbent upon the management of any message center to set rules and enforce some semblance of decorum. It’s equally incumbent upon the participants to follow the rules and behave civilly toward one another even when they may not agree over certain issues.

 

We’ve had client posters reveal personal information about escorts. We’ve had escort posters reveal personal information about clients. Escorts have used alternate identities to attack the competition. Moderators have been attacked and Daddy has been subjected to numerous accusations. Along the way we’ve dealt with more than a couple of disagreements over politics, personality clashes, internet stalking, multiple user names, and real or imagined favoritism. Oh and let’s toss in a plagiarism scandal for good measure. Lest we forget we’ve also seen the untimely death of the founder of this site as well as a couple of posters.

 

The problems we’ve experienced here are not unique to this message board. The cat fights at muscleservice.com make the spats here look like a quilting bee. I’ve seen situations at non gay boards where people are quickly tossed out for the slightest infractions. The rules here are pretty lenient when it comes down to it and Daddy and the moderators have some very thick skins to put up with some of what goes on here.

 

Often times I wonder about the folks who allow themselves to get too wrapped up in this or any other message center. It’s beyond me why some people will take things so seriously when the basic subject here is about sex ….for money. It’s supposed to be about sharing the fun, at least that’s how I see it. Call it conjecture but perhaps self esteem plays a part. Just because one was not popular in high school does not entitle sharing that baggage and wreaking havoc.

 

This is a great place for sharing information. There’s certainly an interesting collection of characters who contribute to various levels. I’ve hired some great escorts from this site. Along the way I’ve met several of the posters here in person which has been gratifying. One thing is for certain from my perspective….this place ain’t boring. ;-)

[+ deej]

>Daddy and the moderators have some very thick skins to put up with some of what goes on here

 

It's scar tissue, actually. ;-)

[GloriousGodfrey]

>>Prepare a list of rules (one general rule to follow the

>main

>>rules and then the rules which would encompass the

>>individual's past violations, then ask them to verify

>that

>>they will abide those rules. If they say yes, then give

>them

>>the chance. They can make the most of it or not.

>

>We actually have that, and a three-strike rule before

>permanent banishment. Intentionally. People are allowed to

>screw up once and come back without groveling.

>

>During our last rules re-write I argued to add an infraction

>expiration so that a timeout five years ago would be forgiven

>but nobody thought that would be a good idea.

>

>>But sometimes in the course of events, people get carried

>away

>>and do things that they might not have done had the

>>temperament been different.

>

>And that's why we have a 3-strike rule.

>

>>If they have shown themselves to be good contributors

>until

>>then, why make them grovel to get back in?

>

>We don't. We spank them and send them to their rooms like

>naughty boys for 30 days, but they don't have to grovel.

>

>>Acknowledge that we

>>can all get carried away at some point. Another option is

>to

>>keep their comments moderated for a period of time to see

>how

>>sincere they are about following the rules. It's just an

>>idea.

>

>We do acknowledge that. We even institutionalized it. But some

>people have proven over time that they cannot live within the

>published rules. After 3 re-tries, we're done. We're wasting

>our time otherwise.

>

>Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times, bite me. }(

>

>I think that's fair.

 

I post on another message board that locked down its political forum for much the same reason. Even with the 3 strikes and you're out rule, people were still ignoring the other rules, so the entire fourm was shut down. It's only recently opened back up with a "one strike" rule...and within a few days, someone got locked out. He then started a thread in another forum bitching about his being locked out of the politics forum even though he acknowledged being fully aware of the rules.

 

Moderating comments would seem to make sense, but it seems as though that would require more modeartors.

[+ deej]

>Moderating comments would seem to make sense, but it seems as

>though that would require more modeartors.

 

For those unaware of the history, there have never been more than four moderators.

 

When moderation first came about, all posts to the mc went into a queue. They were not visible to visitors until a moderator reviewed and approved them.

 

Barry, Cooper and I were moderators during that period. THERE ISN'T ONE OF US THAT WANTS TO GO BACK TO THAT!!!!!

 

If the issue gets pushed, we'll probably just make the forum a bonafide private club, require fully verifiable identities, and throw anonymity out the window. That will completely end escort participation, but it will also likely make members more likely to think twice about what they post.

 

We'd really rather have people grow up and stop playing games.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Two reasons I suggested it Zip, if you have not made a

>convincing argument in two posts, you are not going to change

>any one's mind in ten posts, if anything you will lose people.

 

I think you are assuming that all posts from any one poster will simply be him trying to assert his viewpoint. Sometimes that is the case, but not always.

 

Many times another poster, who has just joined the thread, will bring up a new point that has not been presented before - another viewpoint.

If I have already made two comments, why should I be prevented by a piece of software from making another observation. Maybe the latest post has convinced me that my original position was incorrect. Should I not be able to say so?

 

This is called a discussion. Not every discussion is an argument.

[+ Charlie]

The two post limit appeals to me because so many long threads turn into private conversations--often not very interesting--between two people.

[rentingdad]

haven't seen Mr. Rick on here lately?

[JT Brooklyn]

Renting..Mr Rick and his Hunky other Half could very well be Traveling and haven't "tuned in" since DADDYS Triumphant return to the Forums and chit-chat.

 

I do agree with those that feel.. a Tennis Match between 2 Posters after a FEW Serves can get out of hand sometimes "Nasty" and definitely boring!

 

Since the Forums just Opened Up as far as "Missing In Action" goes, only time will tell! IMHO of course..;-)

[Scorpio]

>haven't seen Mr. Rick on here lately?

 

He's been online and he has posted.

[GloriousGodfrey]

>>Moderating comments would seem to make sense, but it

>seems as

>>though that would require more modeartors.

>

>For those unaware of the history, there have never been more

>than four moderators.

>

>When moderation first came about, all posts to the mc went

>into a queue. They were not visible to visitors until a

>moderator reviewed and approved them.

>

>Barry, Cooper and I were moderators during that period. THERE

>ISN'T ONE OF US THAT WANTS TO GO BACK TO THAT!!!!!

>

>If the issue gets pushed, we'll probably just make the forum a

>bonafide private club, require fully verifiable identities,

>and throw anonymity out the window. That will completely end

>escort participation, but it will also likely make members

>more likely to think twice about what they post.

>

>We'd really rather have people grow up and stop playing

>games.

 

I realize that it would probably take more time than anyone really wants to spend to go back to a system like that. You'd in essence be punishing yourselves rather than the transgressors.

 

With the new message center software coming, would it be possible to just put individual posters on moderation? For example, first strike, you get a warning from Daddy and put on moderation for 10 days. Second strike, you get put on moderation for say 30 days. Third strike, you're out.

 

Just a suggestion. I don't know enough about the software to even know if that's possible, or that you'd even want to go that route.

[+ Charlie]

You can't imagine how much it warms the cockles of my heart to read someone who knows the difference between "wreaking havoc" and "wrecking havoc", as I saw recently in a major newspaper.

[Lankypeters]

>The NY chapter of Hooville is still very active

>and meets on a regular basis at the 20 Club. It's a great

>group to hang with especially when it comes to escort

>recommendations.

>

 

 

How does one become a member of this group?

>

 

 

Lankypeters

[+ deej]

>With the new message center software coming, would it be

>possible to just put individual posters on moderation?

 

Been there. Done that.

 

DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO IT.

[Lankypeters]

>The two post limit appeals to me because so many long threads

>turn into private conversations--often not very

>interesting--between two people.

 

I second this suggestion. Back and forth once. After that, send each other nasty IMs or e-mails. Since November, several threads deteriorated into cat fights between two posters.

 

 

Lankypeters

[+ deej]

::chuckle::

 

Been a while since we've had a good grammar thread. (I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether that means a thread about good grammar or a good thread about grammar.)

 

There are certainly times this site puts the greengrocer's apostrophe to shame. :-)

[Rick Munroe]

>Been there. Done that.

>

>DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO IT.

 

I didn't know George H. W. Bush was posting here now.

 

http://www.historyhelper.co.uk/assets/images/george-hw-bush-picture.jpg

[Lookin]

If the new software allows, why not add a Snake Pit Forum?

 

Rather than ban a rude poster entirely, why not just limit his posting privileges to a single forum? That way, folks who like that sort of thing can read that sort of thing. The rest can avoid it, or just drop in for an occasional hissing match.

 

http://cosmokitty.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/indysnake.jpg

 

Of course, posting personal information, stalking, and other egregious violations would still get a poster banned from the Message Center permanently. But plain old bad manners would just get you thirty days in the Snake Pit. Full posting privileges would be restored after a month. You can climb out twice, but the third trip down would be your last.

 

Who knows, it may become the most popular forum on the site. But at least there'd be fourteen other forums to exchange information and ideas civilly, and moderators wouldn't have to take the larger step of running a controversial poster off the ranch for good.

 

Best of all, if it doesn't work, you can close down just that one forum instead of the whole Message Center.

[AdamSmith]

>If the new software allows, why not add a Snake Pit Forum?

 

Too perfect! Remember the creepy movie of that name?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snake_Pit

 

http://filmfanatic.org/reviews/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/snake-pit-pit.png

[Lookin]

http://files.blog-city.com/files/A05/141484/p/f/snakepit.jpg

 

Where am I? And where is my underwear?

[+ deej]

>If the new software allows, why not add a Snake Pit Forum?

 

That's what the politics forum is for. It's a dual purpose. }(

[raulgmanzo]

>>If the new software allows, why not add a Snake Pit

>Forum?

>That's what the politics forum is for. It's a dual purpose. }(

>

 

Unfortunately this makes it hard to have a serious discussion about politics with out certain posters resorting to name calling and other bad habits. I never understood why people use terms like liberal loonies or right wingnuts in that or any forum.

 

Though a wonderful resource, it is probably healthy for most of us to have had a break from the message center. Maybe we got caught up on some other things, and had a chance to reflect on the great service that Daddy and the moderators provide. So it isn't perfect, oh well, such is life.

 

Raul

http://daddysreviews.com/finder.php?who=raul_g_chicago

http://maleescortreview.com/index.php?file=escort_review_view&escort_id=106120684