What's wrong with this picture, too?

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

Woodlawn,

 

Here is a gift for you. It seems you are flowing rather heavily today.

 

VDN

 

http://www.westburypharmacy.com/Merchant2/mivagraphics/bergen/499095.jpg

[woodlawn]

>Woodlawn, you are relentless indeed. You remind me of Mr.

>Darcy from Pride and Prejudice – “My temper I

>dare not vouch for. It is, I believe, too little yielding –

>certainly too little for the convenience of the world. I

>cannot forget the follies and vices of others so soon as I

>ought, nor their offences against myself. My feelings are not

>puffed about with every attempt to move them. My temper would

>perhaps be called resentful. My good opinion once lost, is

>lost forever.”

 

I consider such a comparison as a high compliment indeed!

 

 

>Of course, Darcy did undergo a transformation

>by the end of the book!

 

He did? As I remember it, it was Elizabeth who realized that his misgivings about her family were well founded after her younger sister's disastrous escapade.

 

>Could you not just accept an apology

>graciously?

 

I could if I thought there was anything behind it. But an apology doesn't mean much if it is not coupled with a sincere intention to reform the offending behavior. I don't condemn Hooboy for getting personal -- he's certainly no more guilty of that than many here. I just want him (and certain others I could name) to stop lecturing the rest of us on civility when they clearly can't keep a civil tongue in their own heads.

 

>My apologies to Boston Guy for prolonging this discussion that

>has little to do with the original considered and

>thought-provoking post.

 

And my apologies as well. Boston Guy's posts are always thoughtful and well-considered and his latest is no exception. I am very grateful for the kind words he said about me, of course. I share his distress at the departure of certain people who can't stomach being censored or reproved by "moderators" whose own conduct on this board is far from perfect.

 

Should there be any limits to what is said on this board? I suppose so. But not the ones that are presently in force. I suspect that publishing a post by a necrophiliac who wants to see the naked corpse of Pat Tillman, for example, could get this site in real trouble with the authorities. But calling Devon "short-dicked and aging" or whatever it is Hawk said is not in that category. So it makes very little sense that nothing was done about the former until I had called attention to it several times with critical posts, while Hawk was kicked off the board on account of the latter.

 

The management really need to focus on the fact that they cannot have a message board filled with sophisticated adults of varied backgrounds and experience who have a lot to say about controversial subjects like escorting, and at the same time have a message board in which nothing is ever said that would upset Emily Post. If they want a forum in which 99% of the posts consist of remarks like "What a hottie!" or "I plan to hire him soon!" then they are on the right course to achieve that.

 

They also need to focus on the fact that people who are constantly making pugnacious remarks to posters are NOT the right ones to pick as moderators, at least not if any part of a moderator's job is to promote civility rather than provoke incivility. I could hardly agree more with BG's point that they cannot encourage people who actually have something to say to spend their time writing posts for this board by arranging things so that the response to any comment on the way the board is run is always "Mind your own fucking business," or words to that effect. I am delighted that serious contributors like Doug and BG have both emphasized how inappropriate that is. I hope Hooboy is listening. Finally.

[Boston Guy]

Bucky,

 

Your concern about the posting of personal information is well-founded. It should go without saying, but I guess it doesn't.

 

I'm a little less concerned about newcomers who encounter one of the M4M ogres... these days, most people are used to Internet forums having a few trolls. But perhaps there could be some kind of warning posted in a "Read this first before posting here..." kind of document???

 

Thanks for responding,

BG

[Boston Guy]

>In the meantime, I think your criticisms and suggestions

>certainly have merit... but I am curious about the

>"Free-for-all" forum you suggested. In your opinion, would it

>be a separate forum, where any sort of thread could be

>initiated and posted on? Would threads from other forums that

>run out of control or off topic be moved there when the

>moderators see fit? Would it end up just becoming a place

>where the hot-headed could go just to trade insults for all

>eternity?

 

I don't know: the idea of one separate forum that was reasonably free of moderation occurred to me while I was writing the original post in this thread. I was trying to think of a way to both encourage the kind of free-wheeling, passionate debate that in the past has made M4M a place that people visited multiple times per day as well respect the desires of those who would like the place to be more orderly. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I thought I throw it out for discussion and see what others thought.

 

>BTW... I noticed on the "Welcome" banner a few days ago that

>VaHawk has been allowed back to post, if he wants to. I hope

>we'll see him again soon.

>

>Trix

 

Good news and bad news... :-) Ironically, I'm one of the people here who actually prefers people to be reasonably nice and refrain from personal attacks.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

>I choose not to; I see nothing's changed. It's just not

>interesting to me anymore. I see that the threads are much

>more boring and the moderating much more pompous. Sadly, it

>was far more interesting with Ethan, Truth Teller,

>Hairydombrazil, FFF, and even Ad rian. It was even more

>interesing with VAHAWK (as much as it hurts to say that).

 

If I may, please don't leave just yet. Instead, stick around a bit and see if we can help HB/Daddy to make M4M better (which, to my mind, means more like it used to be...).

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

>Q. Is your complaint with the way the moderators are doing

>their jobs, or with the message center rules they enforce?

 

I'm not sure if your question was to me or not. If so, that's an easy answer: I like each of the moderators and believe that they have all added much of value to M4M in their personal posts. I think the policies have been responsible for the drift toward more and more control, probably combined with the absolutely human feeling of "oh, no, not again" that they must feel when seeing the same old problems over and over again.

 

It doesn't mean that it has to be that way, but we're all human.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

Thank you. :-)

 

BG

[Guy Fawkes]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part II)

 

> But I find that I actually care about this "place", this

> virtual commons where so many people have come and gone,

> including many whose online persona I recognize. At some

> point, posters cease to be simply a name on a page and

> take on a personality and a history. They become real and

> I think that their real personality shows through over

> time, despite what might be their best attempts to portray

> a different view to those of us who read their remarks.

 

One of the points I agree with. But, more importantly it gives us a place to meet discretely, and with relative safety. When I was a teenager, there was no Internet, No BBS systems, No place that I could asked those naive questions that would have made my life easier.

 

> I've been hanging around M4M for longer than almost anyone

> except HooBoy -- I think since just shy of one month after

> he first created the first version of the Message Center. I

> think I've been around here longer than any of the moderators

> (except, perhaps, Deej) and certainly longer than Daddy.

 

Sorry babe, But I'm the one that installed the software. I'm the one that made the custom patches to make posting more anonymous, and the one that interacts with the author on a almost weekly basis to get the problems fixed.

 

> That doesn't mean anything, of course, except that I've seen

> a lot of the history of M4M unfold, live and in front of me,

> as it were. I've seen it go up and go down, weather crises

> and be deadly dull. I watched the advent of "moderation" and

> the introduction of the moderators with bated breath, fearing

> -- quite rightly, as it turns out -- that moderation would

> change the nature of M4M. That such change has occurred is

> undeniable: many of the discussions concerning M4M itself

> center on the actions of the moderators, something not even

> relevent before HB turned forum moderation on. Whether the

> change is for the better is up for grabs.

 

Yes, we're still here. Three different times Hooboy has been so uncomfortable with what was happening on the Message Center that he wanted to shut it down, permanently. Moderation was what brought his comfort level back to where he was willing to leave it up.

[Boston Guy]

Daddy:

 

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.

 

I've been in the computer business for more than 30 years. In that time, I've been involved in the software, hardware and networking sides of the business. I've run several software companies as well as a PC/Networking company. And I can attest to the fact that there is a great deal of truth and wisdom in what you wrote.

 

I'm well aware of the resources that are required to keep a functioning site up and going. The only mild surprise I had was learning that M4M was occupying five servers. I would expect that much of that load must come from the Review site, since one think would that the level of activity we see here at M4M wouldn't even max out one reasonable server??

 

More to the point of your post, I appreciate the pain and aggravation you've experienced -- on a gratis basis -- while working to keep M4M going. Anyone who has experienced technical support from the support end knows how frustrating (and sometimes totally infuriating) it can be.

 

Even more annoying can be to labor hard on something you care about and then have other people criticize it or you. Can't they see how hard you are working? Can't they be more appreciative??

 

The point of my post was not to denigrate your hard work -- or even that of the moderators. Rather, I chose to point out what I thought were problems here and try to offer constructive suggestions for how to make M4M better. You see, I know M4M can be better. And that has nothing, really, to do with the hard work you do keeping it going.

 

The site is up and running: that's a testament to you and your efforts. Without those efforts, there is nothing.

 

But once the site is running, people will feel free to criticize what they see and experience there. That's simply part of the deal when providing technology to other people.

 

I remember the day that a young systems analyst came to see me, pretty much in tears. She had put a great deal of time and effort into a new subsystem -- not to mention a lot of heart and soul -- but her work was criticized by her customers. I had to help her see that the criticism wasn't personal at all but was honest feedback from people who also cared about how the system worked. She needed to step back and separate herself and her ego from the work she had produced. Once she did that, she was able to see that the criticisms the customers had sent in were valid and that their requests for changes and improvements were the foundations of good ideas that would result in a better system.

 

Sometimes, when providing technology, we forget that our customers feel as strongly about the systems they use as we do when we design and provide them. But when customer feedback is offered validly and with a bit of thought, it can be the equivalent of free consulting, often from people who know quite a lot about the technology they are commenting on.

 

All of which is to say that I do appreciate the hard work you must be putting in to keep the site up and running. It's hard work and often thankless. But even when everyone involved in technoloy works hard and does their job well, there's usually room for improvement and the best ideas are often found near at hand, in the minds of the people actually using the technology.

 

Regards,

BG

[Boston Guy]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part II)

 

>> But I find that I actually care about this "place", this

>> virtual commons where so many people have come and gone,

>> including many whose online persona I recognize. At some

>> point, posters cease to be simply a name on a page and

>> take on a personality and a history. They become real and

>> I think that their real personality shows through over

>> time, despite what might be their best attempts to portray

>> a different view to those of us who read their remarks.

>

>One of the points I agree with. But, more importantly it

>gives us a place to meet discretely, and with relative safety.

> When I was a teenager, there was no Internet, No BBS systems,

>No place that I could asked those naive questions that would

>have made my life easier.

>

 

 

Absolutely. We're probably around the same age and I can remember a time when I thought I was the only "queer" in town.

 

 

>> I've been hanging around M4M for longer than almost anyone

>> except HooBoy -- I think since just shy of one month after

>> he first created the first version of the Message Center. I

>> think I've been around here longer than any of the

>moderators

>> (except, perhaps, Deej) and certainly longer than Daddy.

>

>Sorry babe, But I'm the one that installed the software. I'm

>the one that made the custom patches to make posting more

>anonymous, and the one that interacts with the author on a

>almost weekly basis to get the problems fixed.

>

 

My apologies. I knew you had helped with the DC Forum software but didn't realized that you had pre-dated it and were involved with the original forum software as well. For some reason, I don't remember posts under the name of "Daddy" coming until a while later. Just another sign of imminent senility... another sign is that, as I'm thinking of it, it seems to me that there might actually have been TWO previous software packages used for the Message Center. But I'm not at all sure that I'm not just imagining that.. oh, dear, getting old is fun.

 

 

>> That doesn't mean anything, of course, except that I've

>seen

>> a lot of the history of M4M unfold, live and in front of

>me,

>> as it were. I've seen it go up and go down, weather crises

>> and be deadly dull. I watched the advent of "moderation"

>and

>> the introduction of the moderators with bated breath,

>fearing

>> -- quite rightly, as it turns out -- that moderation would

>> change the nature of M4M. That such change has occurred is

>> undeniable: many of the discussions concerning M4M itself

>> center on the actions of the moderators, something not even

>

>> relevent before HB turned forum moderation on. Whether the

>> change is for the better is up for grabs.

>

>Yes, we're still here. Three different times Hooboy has been

>so uncomfortable with what was happening on the Message Center

>that he wanted to shut it down, permanently. Moderation was

>what brought his comfort level back to where he was willing to

>leave it up.

>

 

And that's a good point. Certainly, as the site owner, HB needs to have a comfort level with it that he can accept. If he's not comfortable with it and can't alter it so he is, I'd be the first to recommend to him that he shut it down. Life is too short for that kind of aggravation.

 

But your comments have gotten me thinking that perhaps what we're beginning to see here is a question of conflicting goals for M4M or perhaps simply unstated goals. I'm going to start another thread and ask people to list what they would like to see here. Perhaps I'm way out in left field.

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

>Who vomited and why? Well?

 

Karen Carpenter. Because a music reviewer had referred to her as Richard's "chubby sister."

[Guy Fawkes]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part III)

 

> The exasperation that led me to take the last couple of months

> off stemmed from a particular incident but was borne of a growing

> feeling that M4M has become highly over-moderated. M4M used to be

> a place where one could come and have a lively discussion, without

> any fear whatsoever that one would be censored or that one's

> thread would be deleted, locked, moved to another place, or

> somehow otherwise altered by nameless individuals who act in a

> seemingly arbitrary manner without naming themselves, usually

> provide no justification for their action, and generally respond

> to complaints with a "if you don't like it, here's the door"

> attitude.

 

Hooboy wanted a certain "Atmosphere" for each of the areas, his vision was specific and well thought out. As the owner of the venue he really gets the deciding vote, after all he's the one that puts his money on the table.

 

Have you noticed that when the group moves away from the "Atmosphere" that He wants, He tends to create an area to cater to that group? He has opened up areas that he personally dislikes immensely just so that people can have a place to gather. Why, can't people simply accept the gift, and abide by his wishes that his vision be kept intact?

 

> This type of behavior and these actions have been enough to

> anger many long-term posters, many of whom simply don't come to

> M4M any more. There have been several mass exoduses from M4M

> over the years, each stemming from anger about how M4M was being

> run. If I recall correctly, most of those who left have done so

> over what they felt was unnecessarily heavy-handed management of

> the forums.

 

What you haven't taken into account, is how many people left because of how caustic the message center has been at times.

 

You also haven't taken into account the occasional individual that creates multiple Id's and then has arguments with himself, just to stir the pot. The all time winner was the guy with 22 different Id's that would use 3-5 of them to argue his agenda. He's now down to one Id, Do we count that as a "mass exodus"?

 

And what about the several people that changed their Id because they wanted a fresh start?

 

> I can well appreciate that there needs to be some sort of

> compromise between total anararchy and no freedom in posting.

> Where to draw that line seems to be the sticking point and the

> current set of posts shows a fair amount of dissatisfaction

> with current policies. Yet there seems to be no sense that people

> who come here to post are customers or should be treated with

> any kind of customer service mentality. Quite the reverse, posting

> here is continually referred to as a privilege, one that each

> poster should be quite thankful for. If you don't like it,

> "here's the door."

 

Last time I checked the definition of "customer", it was "One that buys goods or services". We don't have a lot of those in the Message Center!

 

But I agree that we have to draw the line. For me personally, it has been "Attack the Issue, not the person" and even when I give detailed examples of what I look for, I still get a ton of grief from a few people.

 

I'd say that the attitude is not "here's the door." but more "Why are you still here?". If I don't like a bar, I stop going to it, I don't sit on the stool and preach to every single person that walks by.

 

> When I became so frustrated in early June, I took the time to

> check the user counts. In the week prior to that date, roughly

> 2,500 individual people had visited M4M at least once. Of those,

> roughly 250 had made at least one post. Of those, only 25 had

> posted more than 9 posts in their entire history at M4M. So,

> for that one week at least, a couple dozen posters were contributing

> most of the material here while a couple hundred more were adding

> some additional contributions.

 

In the month of July, we had 647 people log in to the Message Center. Of those, 451 people posted 3,566 message. 325 people posted multiple times. At any given time we usually have anywhere from 2x-10x guests that are simply reading what's there. I'm sorry but the number of people that complaining are far out weighted by the number of people that are not.

[Guy Fawkes]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part II)

 

>My apologies. I knew you had helped with the DC Forum

>software but didn't realized that you had pre-dated it and

>were involved with the original forum software as well. For

>some reason, I don't remember posts under the name of "Daddy"

>coming until a while later. Just another sign of imminent

>senility... another sign is that, as I'm thinking of it, it

>seems to me that there might actually have been TWO previous

>software packages used for the Message Center. But I'm not

>at all sure that I'm not just imagining that.. oh, dear,

>getting old is fun.

 

:-) Remember that I was "Daddy-In-Training" before I was "Daddy". Also Hooboy and I are administrators, not moderators so the system treats us slightly differently.

 

senility? I don't think so, you being a kind and gentle person that is trying to make improvement to the system.

 

You input is welcome, and is being carefully considered. You won't get everything, but you'll get some things. You've raised at least one point, that I'll be bringing up before the moderators.

 

>And that's a good point. Certainly, as the site owner, HB

>needs to have a comfort level with it that he can accept. If

>he's not comfortable with it and can't alter it so he is, I'd

>be the first to recommend to him that he shut it down. Life

>is too short for that kind of aggravation.

>

>But your comments have gotten me thinking that perhaps what

>we're beginning to see here is a question of conflicting goals

>for M4M or perhaps simply unstated goals. I'm going to start

>another thread and ask people to list what they would like to

>see here. Perhaps I'm way out in left field.

 

But that's exactly what we doing! You spend a long time carefully considering what you had to say, and did it a non confrontation manner ( for the most part). It's worth the time I spend to carefully look at what you say, and give you a reasonable and considerate reply.

[Guy Fawkes]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

> It needs stating that all of the content on this entire site

> -- Message Center and Reviews -- is contributed by visitors.

> No original content is created by whatever organization is

> behind the site. This is neither good nor bad but it's

> astonishing when coupled with an attitude that says "here's

> the door" to every complaint. One would think that M4M, Inc.

> would be falling all over itself trying to keep its customers

> -- and yes, we are customers, who consume what is created here

> -- happy and contributing. There's a disconnect here that I

> just don't get.

 

Because "M4M, Inc." is simply a single person that's "Chief, Cook, and Bottle Washer", Supported by one TechnoNerd that believes that the Forum is needed, and aided by a group of four gracious volunteers that put with a hell of a lot of flack keeping Hoo's dream alive.

 

>In another thread, Daddy asks "What's wrong with this

>picture?" I echo his sentiment but see a different confusing

>picture. It's not surprising that so many interesting posters

>have left over the years. What's more surprising, to me at

>least, is that any of us are still hanging around.

 

But let's look at the key point in that thread...."Attack the Issue, not the person". There are very few limits other than a requirement that a poster maintain a certain level of respect for their fellow posters. Certainly there are taboo subjects, But we don't get a choice in some of them. There are certain policies that will not change because Hoo and I are willing to turn the computer off, and let it remain off rather than subject some poor soul to disaster.

 

For example: We have several internationally recognizable celebrities that post here. In one case, a person posted a message that he had edited in his email client and his signature line got posted. I deleted the message within seconds because if it had remained, his career would have been effectively ended. No comment, not subject to discussion, without regard to any aspect of what's politically correct, and an action that if it had been commented on only needed to be justified to Hooboy.

 

This and similar situations arise much more often than anybody would ever expect. That's why the policy is that the moderators and administrators (i.e. Me) Only have to justify their actions to one person. This will not change. Sometimes the group of us disagree. When it happens, we tend to discuss it carefully, that takes time because we're all spread out over several timezones.

 

>

>The incident that so infuriated me involved two posts that I

>had started. Both were moved by a moderator, from the Lounge

>to the Politics forum. Neither was political in nature.

>However, in each case, a moderator had added political content

>to them and then, judging them to now be political,

>arbitrarily moved them to the Politics forum -- where they

>died almost immediately, as I expected they would. My

>judgment that the Lounge was the proper place for the threads

>I chose to start was overridden by a moderator (Trilingual, I

>believe). How long I have participated in M4M or how much I

>have contributed here was of no concern: the unnamed

>moderator took a look at the threads and moved them to their

>demise.

 

Agreed. Not our finest moment. But, can you allow that we sometimes fuck it up? I can think of one situation that I still get embarrassed about, because in a fit of anger, I did something I shouldn't have. As a result, we lost a poster that I valued immensely. Should I be required to be flogged for the rest of my life? Did I learn something from it? Yep Has it changed the way that I do some things? You bet!

 

86ing somebody is no longer a "Lone Wolf" scenario, six people carefully consider it. Thank heavens, we've only had to take it to that point, a handful of times.

 

>I don't know how anyone else does it. But when I start a

>thread here, I think about it, consider what I am going to

>write and then try to state my thoughts as clearly as

>possible. I'll often spend an hour or more if the topic is

>one that concerns me. Having that effort thrown away by a

>moderator who decides to condemn a thread to an early death is

>aggravating on many levels, not least of which is the

>in-your-face substitution of judgment about where a thread

>should reside.

 

You don't know how much I appreciate that attitude. Writing for me is slow, painful, hard work. It takes me forever to say it in the way that I would like other people to say things to me.

 

I would really love to have ability to be able to just throw something out that will be received in the manner that I intended. Unfortunately, that's a very special gift that only a few people have. We're lucky enough that several people here in the forum that have that gift.

 

Unfortunately, quite a few people will slap together any old reply and think that it's ok. So we have to compromise, ask for clarification, gently steer it back to the point, and look at the larger picture to see what the intend was. I take any angry statement with a grain of salt, and I assume that it wasn't meant to be as bad as it turned out. That means that until a pattern has formed, some shit gets through the screen.

 

>I assume that most of us here are quite busy. I know that I

>am. My time is valuable to me and I try to spend it wisely.

>When I spend it on behalf of others, it's either because I

>believe the effort to be worthwhile or because I am being

>compensated to do so. It's quite frustrating to spend time

>carefully composing material to post here only to see that

>effort essentially condemned to the virtual dustbin.

 

:-) I only work half days....and I have found that it doesn't matter which half the day I work. Typically, I'm up a noon and go to bed at 5am...That's the good days. I am on-call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. When there is a problem, I'm lucky if I can get a couple hours rest every eight hours.

 

>Yet, stiil, I care about this place and would like to see it

>succeed. In fact, I'd like to see it do better than it is

>doing now. I'd like to see more people posting -- especially

>more escorts (although I am not so naive to think that will

>happen). I'd like to see more conversations started, and more

>interesting ones. Few discussions here today rise to the

>level of interest and passion that characterised many of the

>discussions of the earlier M4M. M4M today has been

>homogenized, for reasons that I don't understand. It can be

>better, it has been better in the past, and it can be better

>in the future. But that better future would require some

>changes in policy. I offer the following suggestions:

 

Agreed and it has. Hooboy had to put out $2000 to upgrade the Message forum computer to handle the load. Part of the problem is that we have literally several thousands of people that visit the site each month. We have several hundred people that post on a frequent basis. Yes, we are much more homogenized because we're no longer a "handful" of people talking about one thing. Sorry, but we'll never be able to get back to the cozy little living room we once had.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Q. Is your complaint with the way the moderators are doing

>their jobs, or with the message center rules they enforce?

 

I guess I would have to say it is more with the way the moderators are doing their job.

 

My impression is that they often make unilateral arbitrary (sp?)decisions that do not always concur with previous decisions. If they like you - you can get away with murder. If they don't - you're toast! Too much of their personal feelings are allowed to prevail.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I see it. I would prefer to see everyone treated equally.

[+ Lucky]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

"I would really love to have ability to be able to just throw something out that will be received in the manner that I intended. Unfortunately, that's a very special gift that only a few people have. We're lucky enough that several people here in the forum that have that gift"

 

Who are the others??

[Boston Guy]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

Daddy -

 

I appreciate very much all of the thoughtful responses. I'm sure this is NOT how you expected to spend this day when you were planning your week... apologies for adding to your load.

 

Your points are well-taken. Thanks for taking my post seriously.

 

And I had forgotten completely "Daddy-in-Training". That brought a smile to my face!!

 

Regards,

BG

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

>For example: We have several internationally recognizable

>celebrities that post here. In one case, a person posted a

>message that he had edited in his email client and his

>signature line got posted. I deleted the message within

>seconds because if it had remained, his career would have been

>effectively ended.

 

I knew it - I just knew it!

 

And that recently divorced movie star tried to tell us he isn't gay!!!!!

[Rick Munroe]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

>And I had forgotten completely "Daddy-in-Training".

 

I can top that. I remembered it as "Daddy-in-Training-Pants." :+

[Guy Fawkes]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

>I appreciate very much all of the thoughtful responses. I'm

>sure this is NOT how you expected to spend this day when you

>were planning your week... apologies for adding to your load.

 

It was luck of the draw. This week I'm actually not heavily loaded. Next week will likely be a completely different story. We're currently negotiating a contract with a prospective customer, that if we get, will manage to keep the lights on for the rest of the year.

 

As your in the industry, you can understand what the tech bubble bust did to all of us. It has been an extremely difficult two years. It's only been this year where we've started coming out of the slump. It is still iffy...but we're at least to the point where I'm not worried (too much) about losing the house, the car, or the business.

 

We never meant the ISP side of our business to make a profit, we only wanted it to break even because we needed the connectivity. Hooboy, and in turn all of the users have benefited because from my point of view, it never was about money.

 

>Your points are well-taken. Thanks for taking my post

>seriously.

 

As are yours. Thank-you for taking the time to make the post.

 

>And I had forgotten completely "Daddy-in-Training". That

>brought a smile to my face!!

 

As has been pointed out before, I do have a warped sense of humor.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

>I knew it - I just knew it!

>

>And that recently divorced movie star tried to tell us he

>isn't gay!!!!!

 

What the hell makes you think Bruce Vilanch is gay?

 

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/814/images/vilanch.jpg

[Guy Fawkes]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part V)

 

>I offer the following suggestions:

 

>1. Recognize that the posters here are all contributors, who

>are collectively contributing all of the content of the

>Message Center (and, probably, much of what is in the review

>side as well, since so many reviewers seem to be posters). Do

>not diminish the value of what they contribute, for it is the

>heart and soul of this site. (By the way, lurkers are also

>customers and are valuable in their own way.)

 

Agreed.

 

>2. Recognize that those who come here are grown-ups.

>Difficult topics, in-your-face discussions and great passion

>are good things, not bad things. Yes, as Daddy argues, ad

>hominem attacks are lousy, uncivilized and not fun, at least

>for the person being attacked. But I for one would far rather

>have an M4M that had passion and fire and enthusiasm and great

>discussions than one where the most passionate discussions are

>those concerning the management of M4M itself. Posters don't

>need to be defended by management. It's a big world out there

>and we're big boys.

 

As long as they act like grown-ups I don't have a problem with them. I actually delight in the Difficult, In-You-Face discussions and the more Passion the better. If you can cause me to change my mind with a logical, well thought out argument more power to you. But personal attacks will never change a persons perspective and just ending up being useless noise.

 

Most of the people are big boys, but a few are not...It is those few that we don't need.

 

>3. Recognize that moderation drives posters crazy. Keep

>moderation to the barest possible minimum. I suggest:

 

Agreed.

 

>a) Don't move threads. If a thread is started in a forum that

>isn't where it might technically "belong" -- and especially if

>it is started in the Lounge -- leave it there. Who cares if a

>thread is started, lives and dies in the wrong forum? Who is

>being harmed by this? Posters who might accidentally open and

>discover that it isn't something they want to read? How long

>does it take to push the Back button? Posters who complain

>about threads being in the wrong forums need to grow up a bit.

> It's more important to recognize the time and effort spent by

>the person who started the thread than the possible minor

>inconvenience to a reader who wanders in.

 

Disagreed. I have been in several bars that have a policy of "No Sports, No Politics, No Religion", and you will be asked to leave if you do so. Here all that we ask is that you take it into the other room. If it's important to other user, they'll be there.

 

>b) Sign all actions. When a moderator takes an action, he

>should make an immediate post in the same thread indicating

>exactly what he did, when he did it and why he did it.

>Anonymous actions by the moderators are even more aggravating

>that known actions.

 

Agreed. When we can, Sometimes it's not possible for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it requires a ruling from myself or Hooboy, and it would not be appropriate to comment until the ruling comes down.

 

>c) Act only in the most extreme circumstances. If it were

>me, I'd disable the Alert button. The very idea of someone

>pressing Alert because they don't like what someone else wrote

>is anathema to the idea of a forum for grown ups. We are all

>grown-ups here, aren't we? We are here to talk about

>prostitution, aren't we? If someone doesn't like what someone

>else wrote, they should respond to the poster, not whine and

>press the Alert button. The moderators should take action in

>only the most extreme circumstances.

 

Disagree. It is an easy way for the users to ask "Is it appropriate?" and we can reply with our reasoning without fuss or muss to the general readership. My guess is that about 50% of the alerts end up as being unfounded. My ideas of what is acceptable are far broader than the average user.

 

No, We're not all adults, at least not in the sense that I was taught what an adult is.

 

No, We're not here to discuss prostitution...Ever That is an illegal activity in most jurisdictions, and not advocated here at any time. We're here about Escorts which is legal in most jurisdictions. Some people may choose to associate the two....I do not...and the reason we're here is because....I do not.

 

>d) Ban posters in only the most extreme circumstances. VA

>Hawk was not my favorite poster. His negativism was grating,

>as was his constant insertion of frowning faces and his habit

>of YELLING all of the time. And, certainly, he was fast with

>an insult. But I'm not sure I'd have even banned him. It's a

>tough call and I'm happy someone else is there to make it.

>But banning should be only for gross violations of behavior.

 

Agreed and has been the practice.

 

>4. Encourage escorts to post. I don't know how to do that;

>perhaps others here will have some good ideas.

 

A lot of Escorts do post here. I have no easy way to give a count. I do have a method for noting it, But will not advertise it in any manner for their protection. I also encourage Escorts, Moderators, and Administrators to have both a publish and a private ID. That way they can let down their hair without affecting their public life.

 

Trust me, I know who's who. Most of the time I choose to ignore the dups. As long as you don't abuse the system with multiple ID's, I don't have a problem

with it.

 

>5. Ask for ideas. A lot of people care about this place.

>Ask them what they think and listen carefully to their

>suggestions. M4M is not at a high point right now. It's not

>at its lowest

 

Agreed.

 

> but there's a lot of dissatisfaction and a lot

> of people who don't come here any more. That might be

> frustrating to hear, but it's entirely possible to work very

> hard at keeping something going and still have it not be at

> its best.

 

Disagreed. The numbers do not support that view. It is only a minority of the posters that are showing a lot of dissatisfaction.

 

> M4M still has lots of untapped potential. Ask for

> ideas. You might be surprised at what you find.

 

Agreed...Consider yourself asked....and No I won't be surprised.

 

>6. Value everyone. Every person who touches M4M has value:

>the posters in the Message Center, the people who write

>reviews, the lurkers (they add numbers to the site), the

>people who simply read the reviews, all have a part to play in

>this site's success. Value them all.

 

Agreed.

 

>7. Consider adding one totally open forum, where anyone could

>post almost anything. It might not be for the weak of heart.

>But it might well become the most interesting forum here --

>and be a reason why more people would come.

 

There is, it's called "Politics, Religion, and War Issues"...perhaps

it should be renamed.

 

>8. Welcome constructive criticism of this site and its

>policies. Those who take the time to write constructive

>criticism are often the ones who care about the place the

>most. Thick hides are good things on the Internet. It can

>hurt to hear that something we've done wasn't appreciated or

>well-received. But success comes not from hiding one's head

>in the sand but through continually trying to improve, even

>when that improvement is triggered by criticism that hurts.

 

Agreed.

 

 

>In the thread Daddy started ("What's wrong with this

>picture?"), Doug offers several passionate entries. I often

>disagree with Doug, but I respect him quite a lot. He says

>what he means, he means what he says, and he's willing to call

>a spade a spade. He argues hard and diligently. As I said, I

>often disagree with him. And I wish M4M had a dozen more just

>like him. And Woodlawn, too. He and I have disagreed on

>countless occasions, on what sometimes seems to be every

>subject under the sun. But he's consistent, logical,

>straight-forward and unwilling to yield when he thinks he's

>right -- which he often is. He's like a kind of conscience

>and I respect him. He and Doug should both be listened to.

 

Ditto. But let's not forget about Lucky, Bucky, Trixie, Zipperzone, Rick, and You just to name a few. I will listen to anybody that presents a well formulated debate. Every now and then, you'll actually get me to change my mind ( :-) but it is rare....I can be very stubborn! }( )

 

>Yet many people might think of Doug and Woodie as being

>"negative" posters. I don't. I think they both bring

>something of real value to M4M, something that M4M would be

>the poorer for the lack of it.

 

I agree with you.

 

>Many who have been here long

>enough will remember Truth Teller. He and I disagreed

>constantly and he aggravated a lot of people. Yet, in

>retrospect, he was on of the most interesting people ever to

>post here. I miss his presence and the passion and life he

>brought to M4M. Life was seldom dull when TT was around. He

>left out of frustration with M4M's policies and vowed never to

>come back. And, so far as I know, he never did. And we are

>the losers in that bargain.

 

As Do I, and I don't know if he's back or not. It's not important for me to know. If he showed up, I'd be one of the first to say "Welcome Back!".

 

>M4M was a great idea when HB started it and it's still a good

>idea. It's come a long way but its past success doesn't

>guarantee its success in the future. I'd hate to see M4M

>fail, but that could happen. One of the best ways to keep

>that at bay is to have more people passionate about M4M and

>its success and fewer leaving out of frustration.

 

It was, and still is, an awesome dream.

[Guy Fawkes]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

:*

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part IV)

 

>>I knew it - I just knew it!

>>

>>And that recently divorced movie star tried to tell us he

>>isn't gay!!!!!

>

>What the hell makes you think Bruce Vilanch is gay?

>

>http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/814/images/vilanch.jpg

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm not who I had in mind. I'll refrain from posting the name I was thinking of - I don't need a law suit this week!

[HooBoy]

RE: What's wrong with this picture, too? (Part V)

 

I was under the impression that Truth Teller is still among us, posting regularly, under a different handle.