Board Positions?

[tris]

Whatever happened with the Board Elections dealio?

But that's not my chief topic, here, Chief.

I don't know how many of you feel the same way (I know Bri probably agrees with me, though) but what is with all the drama and posts full of blatant, crappy lies? I'm not just directing this at one particular member, (you know who you are, you liar you) but in general, this section of the board has been seeing a lot of untrue, inflammatory posts that just reek of llama -- I mean, drama.

I love being able to stop in whenever I want, and spout off about whatever I want, but I can't help the urge to call someone out when they're obviously posting to make a statement, (however untrue it may be) or just to let us know that they're mentally unstable, insecure, and most of all, in our midst.

Seriously, some of the posts I'm reading from 'new' members are just too farfetched. So while we've got elected folks, let's put someone in charge of Keep'n It Real. Cuz right now, there's more reel than real.

I propose that one or more members have the exclusive ability to delete and/or time-ban members for adding to the fallacies about our culture, which, if you don't know, exists as much here as it does in the real world. At some point in time, members of the mass media will cruise our boards, read our posts and peruse the gallery to gather information for a story on alternative lifestyles, or the ABDL culture. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have my life's decisions and actions associated (by and in the media) with those of 'locked away-viks-and-vodka-furry-storytellers. If there's one thing our media appreciates, its the outlandish tales of the 'not typical experience' people willing to air their dirty laundry (however false and fantasy) in public.

Mods, do your job! If you need help, ASK! There's at least two of us with a 'balls' button on our keyboard who would be more than willing to flex net-nuts to keep this place safe, SANE, and somewhat honest.

As for the rest of you -- Spit real, or watch yo' neck!

[BabyLex]

Tris,

Establishing board positions, I believe, was separate from creating moderators for the forum (although I might be mistaken). It sounds like your assessment of the situation (with which I agree) is that there should be increased moderation of the boards, to reduce the drama-quotient.

Although the task of finding moderators who are: sane, unwilling to abuse power, but willing to occasionally make unpopular decisions, and are committed to reading the forums regularly can be a tall order. Nevertheless I believe this community has a few potential candidates.

Curious what DailyDi's thoughts are, considering it's his house (metaphorically speaking), on moderation, moderators, and volunteers from the various different sub-cultures are.

--Lex

[DailyDi]

Elections are still pending. Unwell at the moment, so I can't devote the time to properly conducting them at the moment.

mods: I'm all for more mods - as difficult as finding reliable ones can be. But from my point of view, the big problem right now is that people need to post more useful conversations. Overall posting is down, which makes the trouble-making posts seem more prominent than they really are.

[BriGuy]

I agree with you Daily Di, general posting is down and there has been some riff raff going on. Its not bad but with overall posting being down it seems to exacerbates the situation a tad.

I am sorry to hear you are un-well at the moment. I hope you get to feeling better soon. Also, if there is anyway I can be of service to your boards my time and attention are here for your bidding.

[tris]

Same. I've got plenty of time. I've recently moved to a new town, so I'm rather unemployed. Plenty of time to pack the drama on the llama. Thanks to most of middle american jobs going to part time, I'm sure I can manage to fit it into my 'busy schedule' down the road. . . Let me know if there's anything I/we can do.

Yes, I have noticed that overall posting is down, and 'useful' or 'constructive' posts are few and far between. Also attributed to the fact that it's summer, and 'kids' are spending more time in the AC, and have less parental/general supervision, and my basic theory that during the summer/hot months people get crazier. Hell on earth? Quite Possibly. Thanks Global Warming!

[justindiapers]

The problem is how do you determine what is real and what isn't? I'm sure that I have the same suspicions about the same people that you do, but that doesn't prove that someone is a story teller. Almost all of these stories, despite being quite unlikely, could happen in real life.

Personally, when I see someone like that, I stick them on my ignore list so that I don't see their posts...

[tris]

The thing about opinions and intuitions is that the number of people who share the same one thought or opinion is directly proportional to its level of truth. Most everyone believes that Tom Cruise is a nutcase --except for Katie, which means that has a good chance of being true.

And besides, doesn't your mommy tell you that if it's too good to be true, it probably is?

[justindiapers]

I'd disagree on the idea that the more people hold an belief, the more likely it is to be true - if that were the case, we would have to assume that religions are almost certainly true, as most people on this planet believe in a religion of some sort. Which I don't believe in. The masses are easily deluded and are frequently led by mob rule.

Anyway, almost all of the stories that I've seen be accused of B.S. could happen in real life. Banning someone because their story is unlikely isn't a good precedent to set, IMHO, as it creates too much bad blood. Moderating is a delicate balancing act; if you crack down too hard, people may not enjoy visiting the forum. Nobody wants to be in a community run by the Gestapo. On the other hand, letting everyone run amok has the same effect. I've seen forums ruined both ways.

I've moderated a forum that was comparable in size to this one, and there were some tough choices to make with regards to some people. We had people who were slowly wearing the community down with the way their posts tended to spawn flame wars, but banning them wasn't an overly good option as some people within the community liked them. Not to mention that no single post that they ever made was ban worthy. There are a couple of really good examples of that sort of person on this board too. In other cases, when we banned someone, they just kept coming back under new names. Since they were mad, and knew they would be banned again, they would try to raise as much trouble as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see something done about these story tellers. But from my moderating experience, it's never as simple as just pressing the ban button. The unintended consequences can be hard to predict...

[Diapered Rocker]

I think itd be a good idea to ban accounts that arent real...like after a certain length of time they dont log in, then ban it...

A good way to get rid of bots and the like is to install a Captcha, they have them on MySpace and i havent had spam invites since put them on my profile...

[DailyDi]

We're avoind adding Captcha as we have several visually impaired members who use screen reading software that can't understand captcha.

[belinda_sue_fox]

The thing about opinions and intuitions is that the number of people who share the same one thought or opinion is directly proportional to its level of truth.

Complete and utter rubbish

[Baby Bethany]

Complete and utter rubbish

I agree, we live in a society of misconceptions and half truths. Look at our own fetish as a classic example, the masses don't have a clue about it.

Beth

[tris]

Not utter rubbish.

Sure, 'they' may not have a clue, but what is a commonly held understanding, conception, or belief is going to hold a certain amount of clout based on the sheer number of those who support it.

F'example, in Africa with the AIDS crisis - The WHO, the US and several other health organizations had to step in and re-educate tribes and literally entire countries and regions when they believed that screwing a virgin would cure them of their afflictions. It was a commonly held belief at one point in time, thus, it became truth to those who supported the idea.

The bottom line is that scientifically, it's the exact opposite of truth. Considering that many individuals in that part of the world never learned to read or communicate properly before they died, they relied on religion and speculatory evidence as their sole source of definitive information on any given subject, especially when it came to their health and welfare.

If anyone has the Soul-Yellow/White Pages, let's lookup/Ouija the monkeyfucker who started the whole thing, and we'll ask him, cuz I'm nearly positive it wasn't a woman. Maybe then we'll get the truth.

Again, a commonly held (and possibly false) conception that AIDS started in Africa cuz someone got bored and experimented with a primate while they were waiting for the plane/boat. (Also, likely the main reason beastiality/Interspecies Erotica is illegal in the United States.) But until science can provide evidence of the providence of such speculation, that's all we have to go on, right?

I mean, perhaps it was Loki's greatest feat that he took a human form and performed a blood transfusion to save the life of a promiscuous bi/homosexual intravenous drug user, thus unleashing a killer protein on the human race. Maybe some humanitarian Tupperware'd the leftover placenta/amniotic sac from their trip so they could make a killer Okra Omlet when they got home, and it just didn't get unpacked and refrigerated in time, but they ate it anyway -- the point is, we won't know for sure until someone can prove it. Until then, the same goes for the existence of God or any other diety, or anything upon which a significant number of people share the same thoughts.

[diamondback6881]

I would be glad to donate my time to this wonderful forum. DailyDi shouldn't have to do all of the work himself.

[justindiapers]

I think the word you're looking for is "myth", not "truth". Truth implies that something is absolutely verifiable, eg, 2+2=4. Myths are commonly held beliefs. (and by the dictionary definition, using the word "myth" does not imply that it is true or false, though the masses tend to use the word to imply something is false)

What the masses believe is true should be irrelevant to any judiciary system, including forum mods. You're suggesting that we ban people because the majority of the people here believe that a person is telling stories. By that logic, the Salem witch burnings were perfectly fine if the majority of the people believed that the women were witches. I don't think we should take any action unless we can prove that the accusation falls under the dictionary definition of truth.

The irony of the whole situation is that most of what is posted here could be fantasy. I claim that I wear Tena diapers frequently, which I buy from a local supply store. How do you know that's true? You don't. I could really be a 18yr old with no job, no money, living at home with my parents and never wearing diapers because I'm too afraid to buy them and couldn't afford them even if I wasn't. I also claim that I occasionally wear diapers, under my clothes, in public. Maybe I don't. Maybe I'm to afraid to do that. Or maybe I'm really one of these guys who runs around streaking in diapers, but don't want to admit it.

I could claim that I own a 2000 Honda Civic, and 100% of you would accept that on face value. But maybe I don't. Maybe I don't even own a car. Or maybe I really own a Ferrari and don't want to admit it because I know people would call B.S. on it, and people like YOU would demand that I be banned for lying. Rich people do use the internet, you know. Crazy people do too, and on occasion, eccentrics as well.

The thing is, it's rare that you can verify the reality of anyone's claims on the internet. If you don't like that fact, I would recommend that you look behind your computer, and pull out any one of the wires that connects it to the wall. Otherwise, the best thing for your safety and sanity is to assume that everyone could be lying.

...and I'd like to state again that there is a ignore function on this board. When you add someone to your ignore list, you will no longer see their posts. That's the best way to deal with trolls and fibbers.

Oh, and for the record, I don't own, and never have owned, a Honda or a Ferrari. But this is the internet, so you can't prove that, so maybe I'm really lying and own a garage full of Hondas and Ferraris.

[tris]

I'm afraid you're missing my point, and rather deliberately.

Is it feasible that you could own a Honda? Sure, they're great on gas, and nearly everyone has them. Ferrari? Another possibility, though rather remote if you're here talking about diapers. My gripe is merely that we find a way to weed out those who are making wild and outlandish claims that do nothing other than annoy.

[justindiapers]

I'm afraid you're missing my point, and rather deliberately.

No, I don't think I am, and certainly not deliberately. Your point is that you do not like people posting wild stories that you think are fake, and you would like to see those people dealt with by a moderator so that those stories are no longer posted.

My point is that you cannot prove that those stories are fake. Suspicion is not proof, regardless of how many people suspect something, and without proof of misconduct, mods shouldn't get involved.

Look at lynniehyde, if he was just some random person who walked in and started telling about his real life - living 24/7 as an AB, going around town in diapers and full AB gear, etc - I'm sure that quite people here would dismiss him as being another faker. Yet, in his case, we know that he isn't faking because he is well known around the Phoenix area and his story is documented in newspapers and other sources.

And that's part of the problem, any sort of heavy-handed moderation of the outlandish stories would almost certainly end up affecting people who are telling the truth. You can't weed the fakers out because you can't separate the real from the fake.

Again, if a person's claims personally annoy you, then put them on your ignore list.

[tris]

Sure, but he didn't come in and make wild claims within the first 20 posts. That, and we have pictures as proof, and the other sources you mentioned. He's also participated, constructively, in other posts, and is active within the entire community and is well known by other members. All in stark contrast to my basis for this tirade.

I say that you're deliberately missing my point because you keep using positive members as examples of something they are completely not, or hiding behind the excuse that because none of us are face-to-face that this whole shebang is akin to the matrix. I'm done arguing about this, because it's obviously not sticking, and I'm getting frustrated. I just might put YOU on my ignore list! (although probably not because I'm too forgiving, fatal flaw.)

[DailyDi]

Even when we have mods they probably won't be charged with content censorship... just not something I believe in. Are fantasy posts outside of the role-play forum annoying? Yeppers. Do I want to read every post and play judge and jury on the merits of each topic? Nope.

[Baby Bethany]

I love the fact that the topic about moderating a flame war sort of turned into a flame war.......that's funny!

Beth

[belinda_sue_fox]

Just another wanna be mod, who wants a little bit of power so they can do the "It's my way or the highway"

My vote would be a no on him being a mod.

Theres only a few i would vote for being a mod, a few and be indifferent about and wouldn't vote either way and a hordes i'd vote against being a mod.

[I M Soaked]

I agree that some moderation is needed, but, how would you be able to tell the truth from an outright story unless the poster just shows up one time and never resufaces again?

I, myself only post when I read or watch some thing worth posting about. Does that make me an undesirable? I hope not, but if that is the case so be it. I will still read and post when I deam it neccisary.

[PampersPete]

I agree that some moderation is needed, but, how would you be able to tell the truth from an outright story unless the poster just shows up one time and never resufaces again?

I, myself only post when I read or watch some thing worth posting about. Does that make me an undesirable? I hope not, but if that is the case so be it. I will still read and post when I deam it neccisary.

I'd ban you just for the horrendous spelling

[Baby Bethany]

I think that half of the problem in today's society is that we want to 'ban' things all the time. Too many people are appointing other people to ban anything that they don't agree with.

Appointing more mods wouldn't work, because as was proved above ^ a difference of opinion can easily turn into a flame war. What will the mod do, take one side of the argument and ban the other people? We all have different views (including the mods) so there will always be heated discussions, and that's fine. I don't see those as a real problem. However there is a vast difference between a heated debate and personal abuse. I propose that if someone is stalking the board doing nothing but making abusive comments, then we as a community make a stand by reporting that member to DD.

As for the tall stories, well as Sarah said you will never stop those. She is also right in saying that any of our stories/comments could be untrue. We just have to take them at face value. However I think that some of us (myself included) should be more 'on the ball' with some of those stories. I mean some are so ridiculous that they could never be true!! These should just be ignored and maybe they will get the message.

Beth

[belinda_sue_fox]

I don't think people should be banned just for telling porkies. They shouldn't start bleating about being picked on though if people point out all the inconsistancies in their stories.