Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Top Posters Since October 2003
dp1	4000+
orolan	4000+
Navigatr1	2500+
Silvert...	2500+
1dadof5	2500+
Valerie	2000+
steve	1500+
victori...	1000+
myoung	1000+
rabbitr...	750+
HPierce	750+
poetsdr...	750+
Renunci...	750+
lj	750+
fallenone	500+
DoTheCr...	500+
marta	500+
momhelp...	500+
prozac	500+
rebel51	500+
PVulcan	250+
anti	250+
rodsmith	250+
LockEmUp	250+
Quest	250+
artie	250+
KK	250+
LostTime	250+
TGoodman	250+
amberleaf	250+
deadmom...	250+
brennus	100+
scarlett	100+
mousein...	100+
thepar	100+
assumpt...	100+
lildrafire	100+
JakeLF	100+
MrTruth	100+
june5	100+

Newest Users
Registered within the last 72 hours.
cdarling
chooch
genospice
hud123
kelstress
khf333
lisala33

Forum: Site Goals and Ideas

Thread (Discussion): Proposal for determing guest access to The Other Side

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 167820 (In Reply to Message 166878)
Response to "Real Life Story"

Posted by orolan on Nov 22, 2005 05:01 PM | Also by orolan

Gender: Male, Age Bracket: 40 - 49, State: N/A, Country: United States

This is going to be cumbersome, but hey, I'm just following the rules;-)) So here goes.

DP1 said -"Can we all agree that most people who post are survivors (including RSOs and pedos) and want open uncensored, free flowing communication?"
Steve replied -"I don't know that I agree with the former, though I don't understand why that's important."

Free-flowing open communication isn't important? Are you saying you want scripted dialogue? Censorship always implies a slant towards a particular side or position even though that position may not be readily apparent to the casual viewer.

The rules in place are not that extensive and are basically common sense and good courtesy.

There are certain people barred from posting in The Other Side in spite of plenty of vocal support to the contrary by RSOs. Maintaining the restriction in the face of such sincere oppostition isn't courtesy. Not common sense either.

in order to foster an atmosphere in the forums that lends itself to less non-constructive posts

Actually this atmosphere does the opposite. Attempts at constructive posting still end in becoming personal attacks because certain posters don't want to debate the issues. Look at my "Mixed Signals" thread. A perfect chance for a constructive debate. And yet nobody wanted to do that. More fun to use it as an opportunity to try and make a poster look stupid. Notice that your atmosphere didn't foster very well there. Nor did your strict rules and better moderation prevent it. There's that "slant" I was talking about with censorship.

If you paid attention, what I shared was a "proposal" and I asked for thoughts.

Yes you did. Somehow I think most of us thought you would actually read and respond to those thoughts. You know, one of those "constructive debates". But you chose not to. Why? Thought you wanted constructive debates and common courtesy?

I want to limit participation in The Other Side to sex offenders, pedophiles and those in a related category who would generally be interested and able to constructively interact with people from these groups about relevant topics.

So why are POs barred? Simple question.

Because I want to make it a forum where it will be less likely such people will be subject to negative, triggering and offensive posts

Keep the bigoted hatemongers who shall remain nameless out and there won't be any. But let me ask you something. Ever sat in on a sex offender group therapy session? Brutal, that's what they are. I'm sure that 52 year-old who raped his grandaughter was real offended when the whole room erupted in outrage when he tried to justify his actions by "she lead me on". Will you bar me from The Other Side if such a scenario plays out in there and I'm the one telling the guy to quit his denial and own up to his responsibility?

I decided such people should be allowed to if The Other Side's users feel they should.

I think The Other Side's "users" have made their position clear on who they want to be allowed to participate. So what's the holdup?

The reason I suggested a private forum for voting was so the feelings of those being evaluated wouldn't be hurt

I for one am not going to get into a private debate on the relative merits and shortcomings of other posters. Either I think they're an appropriate fit or I don't. Whether or not I "like" them or agree 100% with their position on certain things is irrelevant. I do however find it ironic that on a board where the RSOs are regularly referred to as mangy dogs, scum of the earth, monsters, trash, baby-rapers and far worse terms by quite a few posters that you would have the gall to say you want those same people to be spared having their feelings hurt. I guess RSOs don't have feelings? Or their feelings don't matter, since after all they ARE just a bunch of worhless scum anyway?

I'd be fine with users of that forum simply PMing me with their vote, but that would make it more difficult for them to discuss someone being considered.

Again, no point in all this "voting" and discussion. All the discussion needed has already been done. If I want to voice my opinion on WHY a poster shouldn't be in The Other Side I'll do it right out there in the open where they can read it. If it hurts their feelings, maybe they'll take note and change.

it would still be reviewed by a moderator

That's a good one. A private forum to debate the merits of people, but its moderated. Now just HOW do you expect the RSOs to speak their minds amongst themselves about potential participants if you're rejecting every other post as a "personal attack" on said potential participant? More of that censorship going on. "When I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is" seems to be the rule around here these days.

People are not being prevented from interacting.

Sure they are. I may have a question regarding probation conditions that other RSOs on supervision may want to chime in on and the post by its nature needs feedback from POs and LEOs. Such a post belongs in The Other Side. But since the POs and LEOs aren't allowed, you force me to decide to either not post the question at all or post it in the General Forum and thus open the door for people it has NOTHING to do with to seize the opportunity to interject themselves and their bigotry and hatred into the thread. Sounds like interaction prevention to me.

I've not deemed these people "more important"

Your actions indicate otherwise.

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.

Switch to Flat View

Message 166878

Posted by steve on Nov 08, 2005 04:25 AM | Also by steve

Gender: Male, Age Bracket: 30 - 39, State: Virginia, Country: United States

Per the new <a href="http://www.sexcriminals.com/forums/107/17362/166212.html">website policies</a> announced last week:

<blockquote><span class="mb-quote">Posting to The Other Side forum is limited to sex offenders, pedophiles and their friends, relatives and supporters. If the creator of a thread in The Other Side forum is open to others responding, the creator may invite specific users, types of users or all others to respond. Such users should consider themselves guests and are expected to act accordingly.</span></blockquote>

I propose ammending that to allow "regulars" of The Other Side forum to vote on designating users as guests with a standing invitation to post in that forum.  Like everyone, they'd still be subject to the forum rules.

I propose the following.  Limit eligibility to be approved to users who have been posting for a minimum of 30 days and have posted at least 10 posts to any of the forums during the last 30 days or 50 posts total.  With the exception of guests, all users of The Other Side forum who have been posting to that forum for at least 45 days and have posted at least 25 posts all-time to that forum, with at least 5 posts during the last 30 days, shall be eligible to nominate an eligible guest for a standing invitation and cast a vote in any such vote.  Of those who cast a vote, a 2/3 vote in favor is required for approval.  I will maintain a Web page listing who is eligible to vote and who is eligible to be nominated.  At some point it may be necessary to determine how often someone can be nominated and a process for cancelling a standing invitation, but let's not complicate things at this stage.

Thoughts?  Please stay on-topic and please only respond in this thread if you are someone who is currently allowed to post to The Other Side or would like to be able to.

Thread

166878, steve, Nov 08, 2005 04:25 AM
      166880, dp1, Nov 08, 2005 04:52 AM
            166882, steve, Nov 08, 2005 05:00 AM
                  166887, dp1, Nov 08, 2005 05:14 AM
                        166906, steve, Nov 08, 2005 02:25 PM
                              166911, dp1, Nov 08, 2005 03:08 PM
                                    166937, steve, Nov 08, 2005 07:47 PM
                                          167083, dp1, Nov 10, 2005 05:02 PM
                              167286, poetsdreamscape, Nov 15, 2005 02:01 AM [hog wash]
      166891, Scaye, Nov 08, 2005 05:31 AM
            166912, dp1, Nov 08, 2005 03:29 PM
                  166977, amberleaf, Nov 09, 2005 04:45 AM
                        167076, dp1, Nov 10, 2005 04:27 PM
      166916, rabbitreborn, Nov 08, 2005 04:31 PM
            166983, dp1, Nov 09, 2005 02:30 PM
      166917, orolan, Nov 08, 2005 04:56 PM
            166938, steve, Nov 08, 2005 07:52 PM
                  167035, orolan, Nov 10, 2005 02:23 AM
                        167074, dp1, Nov 10, 2005 04:03 PM
                              167269, rabbitreborn, Nov 14, 2005 02:02 PM
            166948, rabbitreborn, Nov 08, 2005 08:38 PM
            166978, dp1, Nov 09, 2005 04:55 AM
                  167068, rabbitreborn, Nov 10, 2005 02:28 PM
                        167073, dp1, Nov 10, 2005 03:52 PM
                        167141, rodsmith, Nov 11, 2005 03:33 PM
                        167148, amberleaf, Nov 11, 2005 08:48 PM [Steve]
                              167273, dp1, Nov 14, 2005 02:20 PM
                  167079, dp1, Nov 10, 2005 04:38 PM
                        167156, orolan, Nov 11, 2005 10:29 PM
                        167235, amberleaf, Nov 12, 2005 11:59 PM
      166958, Rejected
            167033, Rejected
            167061, Rejected
      167092, Renunciation, Nov 10, 2005 05:37 PM
            167155, orolan, Nov 11, 2005 10:25 PM
                  167267, rebel51, Nov 14, 2005 12:15 PM
                        167312, rabbitreborn, Nov 15, 2005 02:09 PM
            167218, Rejected
                  167339, Rejected
            167271, dp1, Nov 14, 2005 02:06 PM [Renny]
                  167360, Renunciation, Nov 15, 2005 05:51 PM
                        167375, PVulcan, Nov 15, 2005 10:25 PM
                        167380, dp1, Nov 15, 2005 10:53 PM [Rensterama]
                        167381, orolan, Nov 15, 2005 11:17 PM
      167230, Rejected
      167820, orolan, Nov 22, 2005 05:01 PM [Response to "Real Life Story"]
            167859, rabbitreborn, Nov 22, 2005 09:13 PM
                  167904, orolan, Nov 23, 2005 04:24 AM
                        168216, steve, Nov 29, 2005 06:38 PM
                              168248, rabbitreborn, Nov 29, 2005 10:25 PM
                                    168334, steve, Dec 01, 2005 01:25 AM
                                          168369, rabbitreborn, Dec 01, 2005 02:40 PM
                              168376, dp1, Dec 01, 2005 03:44 PM
                                    168484, orolan, Dec 03, 2005 02:21 AM
            167899, amberleaf, Nov 23, 2005 01:55 AM
                  167938, orolan, Nov 24, 2005 02:56 AM
                        168002, amberleaf, Nov 25, 2005 08:36 AM
                              168051, orolan, Nov 26, 2005 02:18 AM
                        168133, rabbitreborn, Nov 28, 2005 02:21 PM
                              168206, dp1, Nov 29, 2005 02:26 PM
                                    168278, Rejected

Forum Home | Top of Thread

Tell a Friend about this page.

Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Forum: Site Goals and IdeasThread (Discussion): Proposal for determing guest access to The Other Side

Message 167820 (In Reply to Message 166878)Response to "Real Life Story"

Message 166878

Thread

Forum: Site Goals and Ideas

Thread (Discussion): Proposal for determing guest access to The Other Side

Message 167820 (In Reply to Message 166878)
Response to "Real Life Story"