Long Delays at Times in Posts Appearing

[ready182]

re: "HooBoy will occasionally ask us to leave posts from individuals in the queue for his personal review, which usually only happens late in the evening. (You're not on that list right now.) Those posters can get off the HooBoy list by being model citizens."

 

Deej - you told us how to get OFF the list, but how can us aspiring troublemakers earn our place ON the the HooBoy most watched list? Mom won't let me stay up late.

[Guest tmbg]

I have been posting to this community for several weeks and noticed long delays, at times, before my post appears. It's very hard to contribute a timely response and carry a disscussion when my post doesn't appear sometimes for several hours.

 

If this is a result of limited moderation times maybe retro-moderation would be best.

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[+ deej]

Delays shouldn't generally be that long, but we DO sleep sometimes. :-) And some of us (gasp!) have day jobs.

 

We have most of the US time zones covered, and HooBoy may be adding another moderator further removed (geographically) shortly.

 

Some posters may see delays unrelated to the moderator of the moment. HooBoy will occasionally ask us to leave posts from individuals in the queue for his personal review, which usually only happens late in the evening. (You're not on that list right now.) Those posters can get off the HooBoy list by being model citizens.

 

Our goal (and one reason so many posters are unmoderated) is to make the board as fast and responsive as possible.

[+ deej]

>Deej - you told us how to get OFF the list, but how can us

>aspiring troublemakers earn our place ON the the HooBoy most

>watched list? Mom won't let me stay up late.

 

Be an irritant. Make questionable posts.

 

Are you considering playing "thread chicken" with the moderators? :9 It's a game I know very well from other venues. My record (as participant) is 3 months before the moderator finally cried "Uncle!". :*

[Guest tmbg]

Actually, what I would like to know is how do I become unmoderated?

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[+ deej]

Hang around for a while. Post regularly and in a positive manner. Sooner or later the moderators will get tired of releasing your posts from the queue and whine.

 

Or write to HooBoy directly.

[Guest TruthTeller]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>Some posters may see delays unrelated to the moderator of

>the moment. HooBoy will occasionally ask us to leave posts

>from individuals in the queue for his personal review, which

>usually only happens late in the evening. (You're not on

>that list right now.) Those posters can get off the HooBoy

>list by being model citizens.

 

One of the primary reasons most idea-driven web sites (i.e. web sites which have as their primary purpose the exchange of ideas and information) have failed is because those who operate the web sites are eventually unable to resist becoming little censorship-tyrants, who turn their web site into boring, homogonized trash by seeking to eliminate any dissenting or divergent views.

 

This is typically the case because such individauls have no power or authority anywhere in the real world. Their ability to control the content and substance of others' ideas in their confined, petty web site is their only source of power, and so they abuse it by attempting to suppress any form of thought or expression which deviates from their own. The victim is always the censor, whose web site ends up being a place of petty squabbles and clique-driven infighting -- and, ultimately, a hollow place where only those who are identical to the censor participate -- and this leads to the demise of anything interesting or worthwhile about the site.

 

It is therefore no suprise that as hooboy posts what he believes are impressive hit numbers (even while no profitability model for this site is anywhere in sight), his behavior as Captain of the Thought Police becomes more and more pronounced - recently censoring a perfectly rule-abiding critique of an escort's review, followed by this policy of refusing to allow certain participants to post until such messages are personally approved by hooboy, a restriction from which one can be liberated only - to use one of his rule-bitch's words - "by being model citizens".

 

This practice makes Soviet newspapers seem like bastions of free expression. Such censorship is sure to drive away even more of the more interesting particpants on this board, leaving nothing but a homogenized, undifferentiated mass of twink-loving, politically correct, painfully nice and boring drones buzzing about absolutely nothing -- i.e., a place full of little hooboys congregating amongst themselves.

 

Censors are always hoisted on their own petard. By seeking to eliminate all views other than their own, on the ground that views which diverge from theirs are "inappropriate," they create a world where nothing exists but themselves - a lonely, boring, miserable and highly unsuccesful place. The Internet is littered with the justifiably dead carcasses of such web sites, killed by the little tyrant virus which has apparently infected hooboy.

[Guest bottomboykk]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

Censorship almost never happens here. Hoo did censor a post recently, but when called on it, he relented and allowed the post to be released. Otherwise, posts are censored only if they break the two major rules as found in the Message Center Rules link.

 

As to the other issue of some people being watched a little closer, that's only done when someone is getting very close to the line, and Hoo wants to keep an eye on him. It's much easier to do so when he can read the unreleased posts in the queue rather than wading through the entire site looking for posts by a particular person. Besides, this rarely happens; I only remember a few instances of Hoo asking us to leave certain person's posts in the queue for him.

 

Believe me, if Hoo or the moderators were truly interested in censorship, we wouldn't be releasing some of the garbage that certain nameless posters constantly spew out in these forums.

[Guest TruthTeller]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>Censorship almost never happens here.

 

The "almost" is interesting; censorship either is or it is not. It happens sometimes here, and the trend is clearly increasing.

 

Prohibiting certain participants from posting without hooboy's express approval for each post - which means holding the posts for 24 hours or more before release - is, in effect, tantamout to censoring them. As the first poster in this thread pointed out, having to wait a full day before your post appears essentially means that participating in any dialogue is virtually impossible.

 

For hooboy to then dispatch his little free bitch worker, deej, to run around saying - "Make sure all of your posts are good little boy posts which please hooboy and maybe your posts will be allowed to appear in a more timely manner" -- is about as pitifully imperious as it gets, a severe symptom of a bureoning sick little tyrant, and an attitude which is sure to make any poster other than those who are miniature hooboys not stay around here for very long.

 

Why would anyone want to participate in a forum in which information and ideas are to be exchanged, if one can do so only on the condition that the information and ideas one expresses pleases the moderator of the forum?

 

>Hoo did censor a post

>recently, but when called on it, he relented and allowed the

>post to be released. Otherwise, posts are censored

>only if they break the two major rules as found in

>the Message Center Rules link.

 

I think his censoring of that post is a sign of things to come, as was his subsequent Queen-like decree that Jon leave the forum when he objected to hoo's behavior. It's very simliar to the policy that certain participants, including those who have NEVER had a post deleted for rules violations, must wait until hooboy personally approves their posts. It's just hooboy trying to have a little power in life, since he has none anywhere else. And as I pointed out, he'll be the victim, since censored forums always die.

 

>As to the other issue of some people being watched a little

>closer, that's only done when someone is getting very close

>to the line, and Hoo wants to keep an eye on him.

 

What line is that? From what I can tell, those on the Special Watch List are those who have never had any posts deleted for rules violation before.

 

Also, listen to yourself - "some people being watched a little closer"; "Hoo wants to keep an eye on him". You sound like you're defending John Ashcroft and his fetish for increased survellience. It's amazing how people like hoo think that adults can't build and regulate their own discussion without people like him standing by as the Daddy figure to make sure that people aren't being bad boys.

 

Invariably, "bad behavior" comes to mean - as it obviously does here - the expression of views which diverge from whoever is doing the "monitoring". It's for that reason that overly moderated forums turn into boring cesspools of nattering idiots who have nothing to say, and thus nothing which provokes the desire to censor.

[Guest bottomboykk]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>overly moderated forums turn into boring cesspools of nattering idiots who have nothing to say

 

don't be so hard on yourself

[+ deej]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>Prohibiting certain participants from posting without

>hooboy's express approval for each post - which means

>holding the posts for 24 hours or more before release - is,

>in effect, tantamout to censoring them. As the first poster

>in this thread pointed out, having to wait a full day before

>your post appears essentially means that participating in

>any dialogue is virtually impossible.

 

Interesting. The original poster did not mention anywhere in his post that it was taking 24 hours. Where, Teller of Truth, did you get that number? How truthful are you being?

 

I can tell you with certainty that exactly ONE post has stayed in the queue for 24 hours or more, and that's a post from the individual who caused these forums to be moderated in the first place. And it was a couple of months ago.

 

>Why would anyone want to participate in a forum in which

>information and ideas are to be exchanged, if one can do so

>only on the condition that the information and ideas one

>expresses pleases the moderator of the forum?

 

You're here. I've often wondered why. Since you object so much to the way HooBoy runs HIS website, why are you here?

 

>From what I can tell, those on the

>Special Watch List are those who have never had any posts

>deleted for rules violation before.

 

Hmmm... you've invented that little truth as well. I'm beginning to doubt your name. You should call yourself AssumptionTeller. How can you POSSIBLY know what goes into a decision-making process that you are not involved in?

 

>Invariably, "bad behavior" comes to mean - as it obviously

>does here - the expression of views which diverge from

>whoever is doing the "monitoring". It's for that reason

>that overly moderated forums turn into boring cesspools of

>nattering idiots who have nothing to say, and thus nothing

>which provokes the desire to censor.

 

Again, why are YOU here? If you find the management of the site owned and run by HooBoy to be offensive, you are free to leave. Note that I did not invite you to leave, I just point out that nobody is holding a gun to your head to stay in HooBoy's house.

 

If we were really interested in censorship 90% of YOUR postings would never see the light of day. How many (since we're telling the truth) of YOUR posts have been deleted?

[Guest tmbg]

>Hang around for a while. Post regularly and in a positive

>manner. Sooner or later the moderators will get tired of

>releasing your posts from the queue and whine.

>

>Or write to HooBoy directly.

 

Thanks to the crew for unmoderating me.

Cheers! Ritchie

[Laurent]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

I just fell in love with Deej. No better evidence of a lack of censorship on this site could possibly exist than the continued rantings of Truth Teller (sic).

[sdg]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

TT I think the fact you are here shows that censorship isn't.

 

sdg

[Guest regulation]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>Such censorship is sure to drive away even

>more of the more interesting particpants on this board,

>leaving nothing but a homogenized, undifferentiated mass of

>twink-loving, politically correct, painfully nice and boring

>drones buzzing about absolutely nothing -- i.e., a place

>full of little hooboys congregating amongst themselves.

 

Several people have suggested that you are one of my screen names. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder about that myself. :-)

[BewareofNick]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>For hooboy to then dispatch his little free bitch worker,

>deej, to run around saying - "Make sure all of your posts

>are good little boy posts which please hooboy and maybe your

>posts will be allowed to appear in a more timely manner" --

>is about as pitifully imperious as it gets, a severe symptom

>of a bureoning sick little tyrant, and an attitude which is

>sure to make any poster other than those who are miniature

>hooboys not stay around here for very long.

 

Half-Truth Teller: First of all, let me say that you are sadly living up to the nickname I use for you. You are correct when you say that Hooboy has exhibited some prima donna type behavior. However, in most of these cases, even with JON, he did offer some form of apology. (Granted, in JON's case it didn't seem sincere, but the apology was there nonetheless) However, Hooboy has shown a willingness to listen to his moderators when they believe he is wrong. A sick little dictator would simply shitcan the moderators and select ones of the more step and fetch it variety.

 

Secondly, while deej did indeed say somehting to the effect of what you wrote, he is definitely not the step and fetch it type. He has been more than willing to go to bat for me when he felt I was deserving of it. He has been more than willing to tell me when I've been a fucking idiot. In most cases, deej has been right.

 

>I think his censoring of that post is a sign of things to

>come, as was his subsequent Queen-like decree that Jon leave

>the forum when he objected to hoo's behavior. It's very

>simliar to the policy that certain participants, including

>those who have NEVER had a post deleted for rules

>violations, must wait until hooboy personally approves their

>posts. It's just hooboy trying to have a little power in

>life, since he has none anywhere else. And as I pointed

>out, he'll be the victim, since censored forums always die.

 

While the end result of a site ruled by a vindictive moderator is indeed as you state, I son't see that happening here. Hoo never told JON to leave, he stated that he hoped JON would leave. It is a subtle difference perhaps, but worth pointing out. As for Hooboy not having power in his life, well, even if the message center disappeared tomorrow, the escort reviews themselves seem to have had a powerful effect on escorts and the industry in general. Escorts want to be reviewed on this site becasue of the business it generates for them.

 

 

>Invariably, "bad behavior" comes to mean - as it obviously

>does here - the expression of views which diverge from

>whoever is doing the "monitoring". It's for that reason

>that overly moderated forums turn into boring cesspools of

>nattering idiots who have nothing to say, and thus nothing

>which provokes the desire to censor.

 

 

If this was the case HTT, all your posts would have to be personally approved by Hooboy. Give it a rest.

[Guest TruthTeller]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>Interesting. The original poster did not mention anywhere in

>his post that it was taking 24 hours. Where, Teller of

>Truth, did you get that number? How truthful are you being?

 

I got this number from this little bitch named deej. You yourself said that those posts which require hooboy's personal approval are often not reviewed until late at night. Thus, if someone writes a post at, say, 3 a.m., that post, according to what YOU wrote, will not be reviewed and released until late the next night, approximately 24 hours later.

 

>I can tell you with certainty that exactly ONE post has

>stayed in the queue for 24 hours or more, and that's a post

>from the individual who caused these forums to be moderated

>in the first place. And it was a couple of months ago.

 

How many posts, due to this hoo-approval policy, have stayed in the queue for almost 24 hours? How many have stayed in the queue for 12 hours?

 

>You're here. I've often wondered why. Since you object so

>much to the way HooBoy runs HIS website, why are you here?

 

I'm here because I like forums where different types of reasonably intelligent people exchange information and ideas regarding a variety of different topics, without any restraint. When I first started reading this board, I found some of the participants and topics interesting, and the rules appeared to indicate - both in terms of what they said and how they were enforced - that this was a relatively unrestrained site.

 

For the reasons I've described, I've noticed a change in that philosophy of late, and it appears to me that the site is becoming increasingly restricted. The more restricted it becomes, the more likely I am to re-evaluate my participation. I despise the self-important "I'm-leaving-if-this-isn't-fixed" posts, and would never write one. I think if someone is intent upon leaving a place, they should just leave.

 

Hoo has the right to run his site however he wants; I have the right to express my views as to how he is doing that; Hoo has the right to listen or not listen; I have the right to stay or leave. I dont' think hoo should change the way things are operated becuase any one person threatens to leave. He should change it only if he perceives that doing so is likely to improve the chances that he can accomplish whatever goals he has for the site.

 

As long as I'm here, I'll express my views on whatever topics on which I want to opine. If and when any site, for whatever reasons, becomes incompatiable with what I like, I'll stop participating. Until then, I'll criticize it when I think it's warranted.

 

>Hmmm... you've invented that little truth as well. I'm

>beginning to doubt your name. You should call yourself

>AssumptionTeller. How can you POSSIBLY know what goes into a

>decision-making process that you are not involved in?

 

I know that my posts have been held in the queue recently, despite the fact that the ONLY time I have ever had a post deleted was when I responded to one of YOUR rule-violating posts, and excerpted the part of your post which violated the rules - thus necessitating that my post be deleted along with yours. Other than the time that your rule-violating post infected my rule-compliant post and caused it to be deleted, I have never had a post deleted, yet my posts have been held in the queue.

 

>If we were really interested in censorship 90% of YOUR

>postings would never see the light of day. How many (since

>we're telling the truth) of YOUR posts have been deleted?

 

I didn't say that full-blown censorship has occurred here yet. If it had, I would have ceased participating long ago. I have merely pointed out that recent behavior suggests that things are headed in that direction, and I have set forth my reasons why I think such behavior is as objectionable as it is self-destructive.

[Guest TruthTeller]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>You are

>correct when you say that Hooboy has exhibited some prima

>donna type behavior. However, in most of these cases, even

>with JON, he did offer some form of apology. (Granted, in

>JON's case it didn't seem sincere, but the apology was there

>nonetheless).

 

I think that's significant. Deleting a post when it did not even arguably violate the rules; followed by expressing his desire that the censored person leave; followed by an "apology" which was as insincere as an apology gets, is reflective of the precise conduct which is the hallmark of a petty censor-tyrant. As a general proposition, once someone starts tasting that sort of abuse, it's very difficult for them to stop.

 

>However, Hooboy has shown a willingness to

>listen to his moderators when they believe he is wrong. A

>sick little dictator would simply shitcan the moderators and

>select ones of the more step and fetch it variety.

 

Dictators often have slavish, loyal aides around whose obsequious advice they listen to. Hitler often listened to critiques from Goebbels and Himmler. The fact that hooboy has little eunuch-minions who can beg him to change his mind hardly negates anything I've said.

 

>Secondly, while deej did indeed say somehting to the effect

>of what you wrote, he is definitely not the step and fetch

>it type. He has been more than willing to go to bat for me

>when he felt I was deserving of it.

 

Listen to what deej said. He told the gentleman who inquired that those who are on the Hoo List can get off it by becoming good little boys who please hoo. How sick is that?

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

This place actually used to be fun. I came here under a different, more pleasant persona at the site's inception. Now, it is a chore to stay longer than a few minutes at a time. However, I do admit to checking in a couple of times a week, just to catch up on the latest dirt and to see which escorts have pissed HooBoy off since my last visit. And as for all this emphasis on his editing chores since he gave up his day job, the misspellings in reviews, etc. continue to mount. He seemed less cranky when he was working fulltime.

 

Of couse, as always, the number one reason to come here is to see how Tampa Yankee has managed to repackage every original thought made by anyone else and regurgitate it as his own. He is a dear soul who should be cherished. There are not many kiss asses left in the world and those who remain should be treated with the dignity they deserve. :9

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

Gosh, geewiz, golly darn...

 

It warms my heart to know I fill a void in someone's life. I'm content to know that I have touched at least one person and given him daily purpose (or every few days anyway). I guess this pretty much makes my life complete. And while you, bitchboy, are a 'peach', I preferred your previous persona though others may not have... he seemed more well rounded, almost void-free, save one area.

 

cheers :-)

[Guest Konga]

RE: Petty gripes

 

>I didn't say that full-blown censorship has occurred here yet. If it had, I would have ceased participating long ago.<

 

Apparently, you remain free to "participate", as well as whine, insinuate, grossly assume, insult, abuse, and wish misery and painful death upon other posters here for as long as you wish. How lucky we all are that no censorship exists at this site.

 

>I think such behavior is as objectionable as it is self-destructive.<

 

My very thoughts regarding the bulk of your uncensored genious. Keep 'em coming, you happy thing.

[Guest TruthTeller]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>Several people have suggested that you are one of my screen

>names.

 

I believe that they have actually suggested that you are one of my screen names.

 

My favorite one of these Screen Name accusations used to be how ExFratBoy insisted that I was Lucky, while Lucky simultaneously insisted that I was various hybrids of you. My new favorite one is the suggestion that I'm Esc-Tracker and he's me - placed in his ratings by an ingenious poster. I think the only person I haven't been accused of being is (thankfully) deej.

 

>Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder about that myself.

>:-)

 

Definitely - I'm the unintersting, inarticulate, "scummy little liar" side of you. Everyone needs one of those.

[sdg]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

I agree TT we do need you. However, I see you more as being interesting, articulate and unfortuately a little too intelligent. Usually too much intelligence breeds cynicalism or which you seem to have alot.

 

Being new here I'm sure this observation will not endear me to many. But what the hell I really don't want to be endeared to those who can't take an alternative opinion for just that.

 

sdg

[+ deej]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

<<How many posts, due to this hoo-approval policy, have stayed in the queue for almost 24 hours? How many have stayed in the queue for 12 hours?>>

 

Maybe as many as 10, total. And that includes the posts of questionable content that we leave for HooBoy anyway. You wouldn't even need to take your socks off to count them.

 

Look, you keep making broad and sweeping assumptions and accusations with absolutely no basis in fact. Keep posting them yelling about things you know nothing about. Keep posing as the truth. Go ahead. The Message Center Rules contain language which specifically allow you to be a shithead on purpose.

 

<<I know that my posts have been held in the queue recently>>

 

Your posts are being ignored in the queue by me because I REFUSE TO READ THEM right now. After I've had a break from your sheer nastiness for a while, I'll resume reading and releasing them until you wear thin again.

 

I can hear the sputtering about "unfair treatment" that'll come next and I'll tell you right now you can talk to the hand. It wasn't ME that caused this situation. There are four of us so chances are good that one of the other three will release your posts. Of course I haven't talked to them so I'm not sure what mood they're in at the moment. }>

[Guest TruthTeller]

RE: Petty Tyrants

 

>I can hear the sputtering about "unfair treatment" that'll

>come next and I'll tell you right now you can talk to the

>hand. It wasn't ME that caused this situation. There are

>four of us so chances are good that one of the other three

>will release your posts. Of course I haven't talked to them

>so I'm not sure what mood they're in at the moment. }>

 

Thank you for proving my point. Had you just been honest from the beginning, a lot of time could have been saved.

 

My only point, which you proved, is that when the power to censor Internet site discussions is given to pathetic little twirps who have no importance or power in their real lives, they abuse it by causing to be suppressed those views and/or participants which they dislike. The Web site suffers greatly as a result, because the only thing that ends up existing on the Site are replicas of the boring little twirps - who have not one original or interesting thing to say (which is why they were picked in the first place as "moderators") - controlling the content.

 

Could you have been any more disingenous and misleading: "Oh, no, we don't censor - not us. Perish the thought. We just single out certain participants we dislike and cause their posts not to be released."