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.
baldbabj
inguana
mastamper7705
RADGRAD
sydney

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 167859 (In Reply to Message 167820)

Posted by rabbitreborn on Nov 22, 2005 09:13 PM | Also by rabbitreborn

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

Orolan, has anyone ever told you that you can be long winded at times? LOL

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.

Orolan, get real. When has a moderated forum EVER been free of censorship? By it's very nature, moderation of posts DEMANDS censorship.

Maintaining the restriction in the face of such sincere oppostition isn't courtesy. Not common sense either.

I would have to absolutely agree with you on this one. I have already expressed to steve that I am willing to follow whatever path he chooses to determine permanent guest access, BUT DO SOMETHING!

Nor did your strict rules and better moderation prevent it.

I was wondering about this myself. It seems that certain posters have an almost carte-blanche approval to post whatever the want without their posts being edited or rejected. Maybe I'm wrong but it sure "seems" that way.

So why are POs barred? Simple question.

I can't wait to hear the answer to this one. Especially in the case of DP1 who, while being adamantly against sex offenses, has been one of the greatest sources of information for RSO's that visit this site.

Brutal, that's what they are.

man is that the understatement of the day.......

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?

If so, he'll be banning me right along with you for the same reason.

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.

Nice. I was thinking the same thing. The sad part is, most offenders that are activly posting on the web about the SO issues have pretty thick skins. Sure some things can get to us (a good example was DP1's "real life" thread which hit me like a runaway freight train) but as a general rule, we are tough enough to take it.

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

LMAO, I think the truth here is that steve is trying to protect the feelings of the non-RSO's.

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?

ROTFLMAO, NICE.... I hadn't even thought of this one.

Sure they are.

Sorry Orolan, but you are wrong here. Steve specifically gave us (RSO's) the authority to "invite" participation from anyone we desire to reply. I agree, it's a real PITA, but it does work.

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

Switch to Flat View

Message 167820
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.
<blockquote>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."</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>The rules in place are not that extensive and are basically common sense and good courtesy.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>in order to foster an atmosphere in the forums that lends itself to less non-constructive posts</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>If you paid attention, what I shared was a "proposal" and I asked for thoughts.</blockquote>
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?
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
So why are POs barred? Simple question.
<blockquote>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</blockquote>
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?
<blockquote>I decided such people should be allowed to if The Other Side's users feel they should.</blockquote>
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?
<blockquote>The reason I suggested a private forum for voting was so the feelings of those being evaluated wouldn't be hurt</blockquote>
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?
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>it would still be reviewed by a moderator</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>People are not being prevented from interacting.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>I've not deemed these people "more important"</blockquote>
Your actions indicate otherwise.

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 167859 (In Reply to Message 167820)

Message 167820Response to "Real Life Story"

Thread

Forum: Site Goals and Ideas

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

Message 167820
Response to "Real Life Story"