NSFW avatars / Censorship / Gripes - Issues!

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:14 am

If you've never been to the chat, I'm not sure why you'd venture to call it silly. When I started baiting, it was one of the best resources I found to have in-depth one-on-one conversations with some baiters that have been around for years. I learned an awful lot from those baiters.

That's the only thing unclear to me in your post, TS, but as you're the champion of the literal, I'm certain it's myself that's missing something.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:54 am

TS's experience with chat is marred by a single incident. I believe that's what he referring too. Something specific - while speaking generally. We had already established that chat used wisely is great helping people with baits and real-time site killing.

I think particular topic has run it's course. As always, and as it's always been - If you have a problem, contact someone. Don't let the wound go gangrene. I will have to remove your leg.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:37 pm

I think Snerd's comment is a little hash. Mods asked for specific examples. Some people provided very good, specific examples. Some provided stupid ones. Even lotta and another mod or two commented that some of the examples provided were good, valid ones. So, without this "shit stirring" such things would never have come to light. Either lotta is just humouring the poster (which is not the case) or there was a legitimate concern brought about by this "shit stirring".

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:23 pm

Just because a little good can come from "shit stirring" doesn't mean it's the best vehicle. I'm amazed (and relieved) we have gotten this far without anyone getting themselves banned. That's the risk of allowing a grievance to fester and build until it bubbles over into some random thread and creates a bunch of drama. Wouldn't it be much easier to raise concerns civilly in a thread or in a PM to a mod?

The specific examples that have been mentioned are minor and reasonable. If someone had PM'd me to say they felt the verbiage of a guideline seemed overly restrictive, I would make an issue of it, and it would probably be revisited. At a minimum, I would be able to explain to the concerned member what the rationale behind it was.

In general, I think most of the members here agree with the forum guidelines. There certainly seems to be plenty of support when a new member posts outside of them.

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

I hope one day people will stop the circlejerking and name dropping in general chat. Some good threads go off topic within two posts

And all the paging whoever posts, or eaterversary posts etc its just retarded and noone other then a select group of people cares

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

luckey wrote:

I'm amazed (and relieved) we have gotten this far without anyone getting themselves banned.

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:22 pm

I put quotes around "shit stirring" because I don't agree that was all that it was. I don't think that's normally a good approach. But I think some people were very cordial in their responses. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with their comments. But, for the most part, people have been pretty reasonable. Again, that was for the most part. I'm not trying to cause any problems or say that I don't like it here. I think it's a great site. I have recommended a ton of people here. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't be on here so much. Laughing

As for PMing a mod... I can't really say for certain (as I don't know the intent of those who posted beef), but I suspect that if someone just PM'd that out of the blue, it wouldn't be obvious that other people felt the way.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:52 pm

@Jojo - Bottom line is, that there have been some members with gripes that have harboured them and allowed them to fester.

If anyone feels aggrieved about something by all means contact a Mod of your choosing and explain the problem.
All that any of us want is the best for Eater.. Very Happy

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:09 pm

Quote:

All that any of us want is the best for Eater

Unless it involves the rights of simians.

SPECIESTS!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:11 pm

Seeing as this thread is about gripes, I'd like to know why Klaasvaak is allowed to have scientology stuff in his siggy, despite all the "no politics or religion" stuff that keeps getting talked about here? I've personally written to a mod about this a while back, but nothing seems to have been done about it. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement of the PM. The stupid hijacking of threads with photos of Elton John was bad enough, but I've always thought this way oversteps the line.

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

Its not a religion. It's a scam

edit: why do you get upset about a cult siggy?

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:35 pm

^^I agree with Klaas.

I see no problem with links in signatures or in the www underneath the sig. You are not making a statement in a post just to argue with people about it, but it is part of your belief and who you are. Just like your link is to the romance scam baiting site you now admin. As long as posts aren't made to directly agitate the religion (or "religion") or political views, then I see no problems.

This my personal view and I am not a Mod.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:38 pm

@Klaas

Quote:

or eaterversary posts etc its just retarded and noone other then a select group of people cares

My eaterversary is only a few away and last year I think I had 2 pages of congrats. Very Happy

BTW, my B-day is Nov. 24th. Razz

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Anyone should feel free to include links to the Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism, Islam or any other topic (which is not otherwise barred by Eater's rules [v. 3.2]) in their signatures. Such links do not constitute "discussions". That said, we're not a site that goes wild with our signatures, as you know. Most of us try to keep our siggys baiting-related. If people want to start proving a point through using their signature lines, then we, as Mods, can and will revisit the policy on that. For your reference, here is the current policy:

Quote:

Here at Eater, signatures are used to show off and inform, but only in the spirit of baiting. Lad insults and threats, icons and links to helpful tools, threads and information are welcome. If you’re thinking about putting something in your signature that doesn’t deal with baiting, please reconsider. As with posts, Moderators and Admins retain the right to edit your signature without notice (although we try to give you the benefit of the doubt).

@Wayne -- if your point is that Klaas' link is more than that; as it characterizes Scientology while also providing a link, then I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you dislike his Elton posts, please feel free to take it up with him in a PM. While we're encouraging feedback (or gripes, if you like) on how Eater is moderated, we are not opening this thread for members to go at one another -- such behavior is very clearly proscribed in Eater's general FAQ and this forum's guidelines.

The point is, we try to pretend we're all adults (or at least can act as such) and not micro-manage every little thing. If problems arise, please let us know in a timely fashion, and we will address.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

Klaasvaak wrote:

its just retarded and noone other then a select group of people cares

Well that is your opinion, but people are allowed to do it under the guidlines, so I would suggest you don't visit General Chat if you don't want to be confronted by these threads. Or ignore them. No need to complain about them. I don't think a change in rules are required, General Chat is non-baiting related anyway.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:28 pm

is it truly possible to avoid all discussion of religion when some of the scammers are posing as religious charities or church leaders?

if their scam is filled with lots of "God will bless you for helping" lines, are we to avoid firing that right back at them?

Is it against Eater rules to discuss things like the Todd Bentley scandal featured on Nightline last July?

Is Eater STRICTLY to be a forum for discussing email/net cons, but no other type of con?

not judging, just asking, as I have been immersing myself lately in reading about these type cons, which precede the internet era by at least a few 100 yrs, or 1000 yrs.

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

craig007 wrote:

Klaasvaak wrote:

its just retarded and noone other then a select group of people cares

Well that is your opinion, but people are allowed to do it under the guidlines, so I would suggest you don't visit General Chat if you don't want to be confronted by these threads. Or ignore them. No need to complain about them. I don't think a change in rules are required, General Chat is non-baiting related anyway.

Hey this thread is for complaining about inane stuff. That is how it started. I didn't survive 4 years on this forum by caring about all those little thingies

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:34 pm

Wasinitfome wrote:

is it truly possible to avoid all discussion of religion when some of the scammers are posing as religious charities or church leaders?

if their scam is filled with lots of "God will bless you for helping" lines, are we to avoid firing that right back at them?

We discuss stuff like that frequently. We've even had constructive discussions about how lads are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with their immoral actions. Outside of that sort of context, it's a different ball game.

Quote:

Is it against Eater rules to discuss things like the Todd Bentley scandal featured on Nightline last July?

If we can have a discussion about that without debating politics or religion, it would probably be fine.

Quote:

Is Eater STRICTLY to be a forum for discussing email/net cons, but no other type of con?

No. See General Chat or Misc. Scams. However, that is the main purpose of this site.

Quote:

not judging, just asking, as I have been immersing myself lately in reading about these type cons, which precede the internet era by at least a few 100 yrs, or 1000 yrs.

Spanish prisoner? That's a good topic.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Yes, anyone can say anything about a religion -- but the point is that WE DON'T DO THAT HERE. We don't say anything about religions or debate whether they are, in fact, religions. If Klaas' signature (or anyone else's) has suddenly upset you (and it's been there for months and months [if not years]) please see the following advice (I don't know whether this was made clear already):

If YOU have a problem with SOMEONE ELSE, please send a Mod/Admin a PM describing the issue AND/OR deal with the "offending" member privately.

If you contact us, we will converse (like Ents) and then deal (or not deal) with the issue. If you cannot follow the above advice, the Mods will exercise their discretion in how to deal with you, which includes a full panoply of options.

This thread is about general issues affecting the forum at large.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

^^

And one of those issues is whether religious or religious like materials should be allowed in sigs. Klaas was used as an example, which is what you asked for.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

And you have your answer.

Next issue please.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:31 pm

JMRazor wrote:

If YOU have a problem with SOMEONE ELSE, please send a Mod/Admin a PM describing the issue AND/OR deal with the "offending" member privately.

Did that, didn't even get a PM acknowledging it.

wayne wrote:

I've personally written to a mod about this a while back

But I'm done with this thread. The discussion after my post pretty much proved what I was trying to say.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:31 pm

Ermm...I do not want to make myself unnecessarily unpopular...but I´ve noted a certain tendency towards regionalization. Comparatively. Be it good or bad, I don´t know. It never actually struck me before I found almost all non-native English speaking mods were gone.
I´m sure it all makes a certain sense. I was just unhappy with seeing a few of the old guys gone who I thought have helped building up this site to a great deal. Things change, I think, and equally dedicated leaders and moderators step on the scene, carefully picked out. Eater is run very well, and I adore the niveau of this site. Do carry on this way please. A few changes I would have liked to have explained, but it may all be personal reasons by individuals, in this case I would not want to know them. Carry on the good work.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:42 pm

This has been good to watch. Being able to air one's gripes and offer suggestions, is good. However, please let's not start taking swipes at each other. Sad

NSFW avatars / Censorship / Gripes - Issues!	View next topic View previous topic