Is it time to raise the bar? (96)

This topic is now full - if you want to reply, please make a new post on the board itself.

This post is on the Pro-Mistresses etc web board.

10 Jun 08, 8:15 PM
Admin
UK, 11 yrs

Jahc99 wrote:
I dunno, this is a free access site, and much the better for it, but the number of semi-literate trolls and wannabes and keyboard warriors on this particular board threatens to make it cease to function.
Would it help if we GOAB'd and locked the multiple "why does it cost so much?" threads so only one was active at a time?
We're not going to suppress discussion along those lines, just as we're not going to suppress the "but the sub has all the power!" threads on UK D/s Relationships, but there's no need for multiple threads along the same lines.
However, this would be conditional on people not flooding threads to fill them up and suppress them, as happened recently.
Regards,
Admin

Remember: it's only a website

10 Jun 08, 9:14 PM
Jahc01
UK, 7 mths
£
There has been a lot of e mail flying around, people trying to figure out how we can keep discussions on course, and make this valuable part of site site work well. Because it is appreciated, believe me.
It is infuriating when sock puppets and trolls pop up with the single intention of annoying people and de-railing threads. Not to respond feels like surrendering the board to them, but responding also encourages them, it's a dilemna there has been much collective head scratching about. I seem to be lucky in that I don't suffer the annoyance of no-show clients, but their Ladyships get it lots and this arsehattery is just the online equivalent.
Well mannered questions, whether profound or naive, get well mannered and careful answers - that has never been a problem. It's those deliberately stirring the brown stuff that are.
The conclusion from the e mail flurry is that the best strategy is not to rise to the bait, but to use humour - not spiteful sarcasm, but genuine humour. I really hope it works.
I don't s'pose you'd let STA moderate this bit? That could be a gas!

11 Jun 08, 12:01 AM
x_Red_x
UK(KT), 3 yrs
Perhaps those threads that seek to deliberately troll could be classed with the YKINOK type threads and deleted or locked accordingly? As Jahc says, a reasoned question, asked properly, will get a reasoned response. But the offensive nature of some of the posts tends to just result in an offensive reply.
Red
Happily ensconced with my true Master
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Free Sessions in Bristol

11 Jun 08, 1:07 AM
Admin
UK, 11 yrs

x_Red_x wrote:
Perhaps those threads that seek to deliberately troll could be classed with the YKINOK type threads and deleted or locked accordingly?
Do you have some examples of specific posts that are YKINOK? ie saying it's not ok to go to pro-tops / pro-bottoms, rather than starting threads claiming, for instance, that the pro business is not what it claims.
As above, just as we don't lock threads that say D/s is really all controlled by the sub, we don't want to lock threads here just for saying, even in an abrasive way, that it's really all controlled by the client.
Do you see that distinction, and the parallel it has in other parts of BDSM?
Regards,
Admin
Remember: it's only a website

Edited 11 Jun 08, 1:12 AM by Admin

11 Jun 08, 1:13 AM
MistressLadyAnna
UK(BD), 2 yrs
£

Admin wrote:

x_Red_x wrote:
Perhaps those threads that seek to deliberately troll could be classed with the YKINOK type threads and deleted or locked accordingly?
Do you have some examples of specific posts that are YKINOK? ie saying it's not ok to go to pro-tops / pro-bottoms, rather than starting threads claiming, for instance, that the pro business is not what it claims.
As above, just as we don't lock threads that say D/s is really all controlled by the sub, we don't want to lock threads just for saying, even in an abrasive way, that it's really all controlled by the client.
Do you see that distinction, and the parallel it has in other parts of BDSM?
Regards,
Admin

How about threads that knock us for being Pros? How would those be classed? Some trolls are practically accusing us of extortion.

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/

11 Jun 08, 1:25 AM
Admin
UK, 11 yrs

MistressLadyAnna wrote:

Admin wrote:

x_Red_x wrote:
Perhaps those threads that seek to deliberately troll could be classed with the YKINOK type threads and deleted or locked accordingly?
Do you have some examples of specific posts that are YKINOK? ie saying it's not ok to go to pro-tops / pro-bottoms, rather than starting threads claiming, for instance, that the pro business is not what it claims.
How about threads that knock us for being Pros? How would those be classed? Some trolls are practically accusing us of extortion.
Are they knocking you for being pros or for how you present your services?
This would be a lot easier with a specific worst-case post to discuss
Regards,
Admin
Remember: it's only a website

11 Jun 08, 9:35 AM
The_Inner_Whore
UK(E), 3 yrs
Admin wrote:
Are they knocking you for being pros or for how you present your services?
Both. They knock pros for being pros and they also knock them for how they present their services. A good discussion in itself, the latter; the problem is when it's assumed that pros, by definition, present themselves and their services with dishonesty. That would be a case of YKINOK (did I spell that right?)
Admin wrote:
This would be a lot easier with a specific worst-case post to discuss

Oh, one will crop up sooner rather than later. They appear fairly regularly, I'm sure I don't need to tell you this.

Cultivate your inner whore

11 Jun 08, 12:16 PM
Admin
UK, 11 yrs

Ms_Tytania wrote:

Admin wrote:
This would be a lot easier with a specific worst-case post to discuss
Oh, one will crop up sooner rather than later. They appear fairly regularly, I'm sure I don't need to tell you this.
Then it should be possible to look back through the previous threads and point to one that we can discuss.
That's a serious request and offer.
Regards,
Admin

Remember: it's only a website

11 Jun 08, 1:32 PM
MistressLadyAnna
UK(BD), 2 yrs
£

Admin wrote:

Ms_Tytania wrote:

Admin wrote:
This would be a lot easier with a specific worst-case post to discuss
Oh, one will crop up sooner rather than later. They appear fairly regularly, I'm sure I don't need to tell you this.
Then it should be possible to look back through the previous threads and point to one that we can discuss.
That's a serious request and offer.
Regards,
Admin

This is a recent one.
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/mistress...
This is a classic example of trolling with inflammatory bias and accusation, rather than an attempt to start a civilised discussion about professional domination.

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/

11 Jun 08, 1:38 PM
x_Red_x
UK(KT), 3 yrs

Admin wrote:

Ms_Tytania wrote:

Admin wrote:
This would be a lot easier with a specific worst-case post to discuss
Oh, one will crop up sooner rather than later. They appear fairly regularly, I'm sure I don't need to tell you this.
Then it should be possible to look back through the previous threads and point to one that we can discuss.
That's a serious request and offer.
Regards,
Admin

Trust me, it's being taken in that vein. Although it would be easier if it didn't keep coming up server error...
Red
Happily ensconced with my true Master
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Free Sessions in Bristol

Next page


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent