|
|
Forum: Site Goals and Ideas
Thread (Discussion): Proposal for determing guest access to The Other Side
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 website policies announced last week:
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.
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.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 166880 (In Reply to Message 166878)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 08, 2005 04:52 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
So a new person can post immediately if he announces the fact that he's a RSO/pedo in his first post? I hope we aren't discouraging new RSOs from posting in the other side by getting hung up in procedures.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166878)
Message 166882 (In Reply to Message 166880)
Posted by steve
on Nov 08, 2005 05:00 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
So a new person can post immediately if he announces the fact that he's a RSO/pedo in his first post?
Unless regulars from The Other Side want to prohibit new users from accessing the forum. My post was referring to guests, not SOs and pedos.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166880)
Message 166887 (In Reply to Message 166882)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 08, 2005 05:14 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Sorry. I was thinking like a RSO (no offense). If a new person was a RSO, but didn't admit to it initially in his first post he would not be eligible to post in the other side unless the above stated voting procedure is followed. I don't have any problems with a voting procedure, but I guess I'm bringing the point home that unless you are able to immediately identify the poster as a RSO the assumption is that he has to wait to be voted in.
Bottom line is, RSOs in denial can't just drop in and post in the other side. Darnit. I like that:-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166882)
Message 166891 (In Reply to Message 166878)
Posted by Scaye
on Nov 08, 2005 05:31 AM | Also by Scaye
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I don't know how anyone else feels Steve but I don't care who post. I'm not gonna get all uppity cause i posted on the INTERNET and was surprised when someone with a different point of view posted to me. I mean come on.
Debate is fun.
Peace and Candy and whatever makes you smile.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166878)
Message 166906 (In Reply to Message 166887)
Posted by steve
on Nov 08, 2005 02:25 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
but I guess I'm bringing the point home that unless you are able to immediately identify the poster as a RSO the assumption is that he has to wait to be voted in.
Incorrect. If someone is new and it appears that they belong in that forum and post to it, their post will be approved. If it's not clear to a moderator, the person will be contacted privately and their post will be held until their qualification to post there can be confirmed. Voting someone in as a guest with an open invitation would only apply to users who 1. aren't in a group that automatically gains rights to post to that forum, 2. have met the minimum posting qualifications across all forums and 3. have been nominated by a qualifying poster to The Other Side.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166887)
Message 166911 (In Reply to Message 166906)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 08, 2005 03:08 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Who and how does the voting process begin? If I was new and met the above criteria and had an interest in responding to the other side what would my next step be?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166906)
Message 166912 (In Reply to Message 166891)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 08, 2005 03:29 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Debate is fun.
I believe the majority of the posters in the other side feel the same way, me included. However, not all people are interested in debate or confrontation, and the intentions with tightening up the rules is as a result of the need to show respect for all posters in the other side IMHO. The other side has historically been far more tolerant of a variety of posters and seems to thrive on debate and intellectual conversation. Likewise, the other side has no problems telling a poster to "go away" if they believe the poster's intentions are based on harassment or hate.
The other side is entirely different than the victim's forum. We tend to bond quicker on the other side as a result of similar interests in regards to discussing/debating SO laws and such. Granted the victim empathy is lacking and can be triggering for a victim of sexual abuse for example, and it's totally understandable why an angry post now and then might slip through. I believe Steve's plan is an effort to minimize SO attacks while attempting to not stifle meaningful conversation.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166891)
Message 166916 (In Reply to Message 166878)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Nov 08, 2005 04:31 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
steve, I appologize for not reading this thread BEFORE initiating the posts I did in the other side. I have no problem with the idea of voting, and I wish we could get this underway as soon as possible. I happen to be one of those that feels that constructive opinions are the foundations for returning to "normal" and just because they come from someone on the "other side of the fence" in no way diminishes them. I have been advocating for some (like dp1,DTCDTT, and eagle just to name a few) to have unrestricted "guest" access to the other side since you implemented the new rules and I became aware they were banned from posting. I think it does the RSO community on this site a disservice to restrict their advise and counsel, and frankly I implore ALL RSO's on this site to flood your thread with support for those that they feel should be allowed to post in the other side.
As I have implied to you in PM, I feel it strangly uncomfortable that we as RSO's (you know, the EVIL monsters) are more concerned with ALLOWING others to post in "our" froum, while there are those on the "Victim's/Survivors" forum that seem almost giddy with euphoria over the fact that RSO's have been banned from sharing constructive comments in "their" forum. Man it truely is a STRANGE world we live in.......
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166878)
Message 166917 (In Reply to Message 166878)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 08, 2005 04:56 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I assume you'll adopt this same voting procedure for Victims & Survivors?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166878)
Message 166937 (In Reply to Message 166911)
Posted by steve
on Nov 08, 2005 07:47 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
A note would be displayed on pages within that forum explaining the process and you'd click a button to request review. Those eligible to vote would have a set number of days (maybe 3) to vote for or against you receiving permanent guest status. If approved, your name would be added to a list of permanent guests. If not, you'd be able to re-initiate the process after a waiting period (maybe 30 days). I'd probably implement a private forum, only visible by those who are qualified to vote, so that they can privately discuss the user up for consideration if they so chose.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166911)
Message 166938 (In Reply to Message 166917)
Posted by steve
on Nov 08, 2005 07:52 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
At this time I don't have plans to implement a similar procedure for the Victims and Survivors Corner. Per the site policies
Sex offenders and pedophiles are not permitted to post messages to the Victims and Survivors Corner forum. In addition, anyone whose participation is likely to be found offensive, triggering or inappropriate by victims/survivors and their friends, relatives and advocates, as determined by an administrator, will not be permitted to post messages in that forum.
For now, that will suffice.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166917)
Message 166948 (In Reply to Message 166917)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Nov 08, 2005 08:38 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
LMAO.....
Orolan, read my post above yours.....
or dp1's for that matter.
While "we" may be highly tolerant of "their" opinions in "our" forum, those feelings are obviously not reciprocated.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166917)
Message 166977 (In Reply to Message 166912)
Posted by amberleaf
on Nov 09, 2005 04:45 AM | Also by amberleaf
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: West Virginia,
Country: United States |
We tend to bond quicker on the other side as a result of similar interests
And we tend to miss the normal posters when she is no longer allowed dp1 :(
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166912)
Message 166978 (In Reply to Message 166917)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 09, 2005 04:55 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I assume you'll adopt this same voting procedure for Victims & Survivors?
That's an interesting point because I was thinking this procedure is needed more on the victim's side rather than on the other side IMO. I'm still struggling with the need to do anything with the other side. Do you guys even care who posts there as long as the posts are constructive? Minus a few offensive comments in the other side that were handled immediately and resolved, I'm not aware of any nagging issues other than the fear an Anti may post and disrupt the conversation. If someone can share with us what the issues are we may be better able to truly assess the need for such an eleaborate procedure. Most of the discussions about who should post where have been in reference to the victim's forum. I'm not clear on why there's an assumption that the other side needs fixing when in fact it seems to function rather well. There's a strong bond on the offender side and they seem so open to discussion with various people which is totally opposite from the victim's forum. Offenders like to bring up topics, legal issues, discuss situations, etc.. whereas the victims are talking about personal feelings so they are far more vulnerable and require more scrutinized posts, rightfully so.
So what are the offenders having problems with on the other side? The only problem I've seen just a couple of times is that a regular non-RSO poster posted and slammed an offender, but I confronted them and it was over. Is this entire forum being shuffled around simply because of one or two incidents or because the victim's forum is struggling? Either way, I would like to know what the needs are if for no other reason than to explain it to the other RSOs so they can comment intelligently after knowing the facts.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166917)
Message 166983 (In Reply to Message 166916)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 09, 2005 02:30 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I have been advocating for some (like dp1,DTCDTT, and eagle just to name a few) to have unrestricted "guest" access to the other side since you implemented the new rules and I became aware they were banned from posting. I think it does the RSO community on this site a disservice to restrict their advise and counsel, and frankly I implore ALL RSO's on this site to flood your thread with support for those that they feel should be allowed to post in the other side.
I agree wholeheartedly and the same for any professional who works in the field. Obviously, if there are obstacles, red tape and a bunch of hoops to jump through to be allowed to post to an offender, when we communicate and counsel offenders for a living, it’s sending quite a loud message and it isn’t a positive one. I’m saddened by the mere thought that this is even an issue. If you guys develop policies that clearly discourage professionals by sending the subliminal message that this is a good ole boy club that actually screens law enforcement, I’m afraid credibility will stoop to levels far below comfortable standards for the average law abiding citizen. Offenders are obviously thirsty for knowledge and aren’t we all considering the ever-changing laws we’re all scrambling to become familiar with enforce or comply with. Policies that inhibit communication or restrict access make me question the intentions, purpose and goals of the forums. I would prefer to continue improving communication between RSOs and LEO by contributing useful information and welcoming more LEO and other professionals. Unfortunately, I see that won’t be possible under the new guidelines.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166916)
Message 167035 (In Reply to Message 166938)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 10, 2005 02:23 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
And that won't suffice for The Other Side because...........?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166938)
Message 167068 (In Reply to Message 166978)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Nov 10, 2005 02:28 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I'm glad I'm not the only one sitting back shaking my head over this one. I thought the other side ran quite well. I guess, steve must have been getting alot of PM's about issues or something. Either way, I have no problem with the restructuring of the Victim/Survivor corner, but I see no need for it to even have effected the other side.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166978)
Message 167073 (In Reply to Message 167068)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 10, 2005 03:52 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I'm glad I'm not the only one sitting back shaking my head over this one. I thought the other side ran quite well. I guess, steve must have been getting alot of PM's about issues or something.
If that were true those phantom people would be posting here supporting this issue. Don't kid yourself.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167068)
Message 167074 (In Reply to Message 167035)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 10, 2005 04:03 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
And that won't suffice for The Other Side because...........?
Because it's too simple. If the issue is so complex that no one understands what's going on people will walk on egg shells scratching their heads. It's also a system which can turn RSOs against each other and fight among themselves. No one has yet to admit to this top secret problem in the other side and there's still no one who can explain the necessity of such an elaborate scheme. It's interesting to note Orolan that you and I have been around the longest and have yet to identify this so-called problem on the other side. New people haven't a clue. I suppose the next question is why isn't Steve telling us what the problem is so we can help fix it?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167035)
Message 167076 (In Reply to Message 166977)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 10, 2005 04:27 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Thank's Amber.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166977)
Message 167079 (In Reply to Message 166978)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 10, 2005 04:38 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
So what are the offenders having problems with on the other side?
If Rabbit, Orolan and I don't know what the problems are why are we assuming there's a problem requiring this change? If there are other people on the other side who think there's a problem then where are these phantom RSOs?
I don't get proposing a change without stating the problem. How can we evaluate the possible effectiveness of it? We see how it will cause participation to decline. Is the problem too many RSOs? It must be since there aren't any here telling us there's a problem. I'm confused still.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166978)
Message 167083 (In Reply to Message 166937)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 10, 2005 05:02 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I'd probably implement a private forum, only visible by those who are qualified to vote, so that they can privately discuss the user up for consideration if they so chose.
Yup. The old fifth nail gimmick. Nothing like a way to slam victims in an invisable forum with no way for them to know or be in a position to complain or fight back. The sides will be split more and more for sure.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166937)
Message 167092 (In Reply to Message 166878)
Posted by Renunciation
on Nov 10, 2005 05:37 PM | Also by Renunciation
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Bahrain |
Steve,
Here is my vote:
I vote to allow anyone to be allowed to post to the Other Side.
I am a big boy who made bad boy choices. I expect a certain amount of criticism and harassment.
If I do not like what someone decides to post, I can choose to ignore that person or respond in kind.
I do not think the Other Side needs to given the same "care" as the VC. We in the other side have thicker skins than victims overall. Some of us are victims/survivors and most of us have been in jail or prison, and in court in front of an audience of judgemental former fellow citizens.
If one has been in jail for a sex offense and feels they need to run away from an internet message board because of a little harassment, then that person has more problems to worry about and should not be here anyway.
My concern for my people is not who can post in the other side, but more about ensuring we can remain anonymous while we do so.
Thats my vote.
People pay big money to watch sports. Sometimes they are there just as much to watch people they hate as they are there to watch the people they love.
Heated debate in the Other Side is a way for us to get our gladiator fix.
I would like to organize the SOs in theOther Side to band together and simply ignore posts from people who come there to flame. They are looking for a response, if they dont get it, they will stop. It was that way with Prodigy in 1994, it will be that way here.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166878)
Message 167141 (In Reply to Message 167068)
Posted by rodsmith
on Nov 11, 2005 03:33 PM | Also by rodsmith
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
i don't know if it've done enought posts to qualify to vote under these new rules but i am an RSO so figure i will throw my 2 cent's in. i don't have problem with LE and SO Professionals coming into the other side and posting constructive information and criticism. they are struggling with the new laws just as much as we are as they are changing so often and so far...not even LE know from one day to the next what the law is going to be. as for the hateful...well we can always use a good laugh...
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167068)
Message 167148 (In Reply to Message 167068)
Steve
Posted by amberleaf
on Nov 11, 2005 08:48 PM | Also by amberleaf
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: West Virginia,
Country: United States |
Steve,
I for one am curious, are you doing this to cause the Other Side to just shut down? People rarely post there now, so I am just wondering if that is what is behind this. I have more PM's than I see regular posting on the Other Side. I rarely post in General, due to the anger/hate. I NEVER post in the Victims corner as I am a survivor. The Other Side, however, used to contain information that was needed for sex offenders and their families. It is just all really depressing now. An example is when the Lunsford Act hit Florida. There were many posts by dp1, DTCDTT, and others that could help sex offenders understand the new laws. Is this something that isn't good? I certainly feel these things are needed.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167068)
Message 167155 (In Reply to Message 167092)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 11, 2005 10:25 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Sometimes they are there just as much to watch people they hate as they are there to watch the people they love.
I used to live in a city that was home to my "favorite" college football team's arch-rival. I went to EVERY home game they had, just so I could root for whoever it was that came to play them. Didn't matter if I liked the team or not. They were playing against the team I disliked the most, and that made them my "team" for the day.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167092)
Message 167156 (In Reply to Message 167079)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 11, 2005 10:29 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I'm confused still.
Me too.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167079)
Message 167235 (In Reply to Message 167079)
Posted by amberleaf
on Nov 12, 2005 11:59 PM | Also by amberleaf
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: West Virginia,
Country: United States |
I am confused right along with ya!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167079)
Message 167267 (In Reply to Message 167155)
Posted by rebel51
on Nov 14, 2005 12:15 PM | Also by rebel51
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
I dont know if I am one that is allowed to give my opinion or not, if I get a vote then I vote to leave the whole site alone. I like it the way it is...just demand that everyone is respectful in "the other side" and "the victims corner", and we all meet in the middle for the "general" stuff. I've said it before and I will say it again..I have been helped by this site just the way it is...and I have been helped by ALL the different people here. One of the things that I have learned is that not all RSO's are the animals that I have always considered them...how would I have ever come close to that if the site was as you are wanting to make it now? How can you learn to come to grips with someone if you are not in thier presence enough to learn that they arent that bad?
I dont go into 'the other side' and post, but I do read there once in a VERY great while.I have posted there, I think, twice..both times I was VERY polite. Why cant we just demand that in those forums? Anyway...if I am allowed to vote...I vote to leave it alone...ALL of it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167155)
Message 167269 (In Reply to Message 167074)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Nov 14, 2005 02:02 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I suppose the next question is why isn't Steve telling us what the problem is so we can help fix it?
Possibly because there was NO problem on the Other Side???
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167074)
Message 167271 (In Reply to Message 167092)
Renny
Posted by dp1
on Nov 14, 2005 02:06 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
So what you're saying is you don't see a problem with the other side. Do you know anyone that does?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167092)
Message 167273 (In Reply to Message 167148)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 14, 2005 02:20 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Maybe helping offenders and providing information so they can be successful is offensive to some people. Don't know who that might be....just a thought.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167148)
Message 167286 (In Reply to Message 166906)
hog wash
Posted by poetsdreamscape
on Nov 15, 2005 02:01 AM | Also by poetsdreamscape
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I mean what is going on here? If you know you come to this side or the otherside and make derogatory comments or attack someone then its obvious that a warning should be had . I think in all fairness to everyone that if such a post is put forth then a 30 day suspension of posting through out the site should occur.
I belive we are all grown adults and know that we have a general forum that is wide open for such childish issues. RSO should not be posting in victims corner making remarks that are hurtful or spiteful and the same for those that have been victims against rso. Whats so hard about that. # strikes and your banned from the site plain and simple.
Sometimes I think we all need to understand that this site isn't just for the regular posters but all of the world to use and to think that anyone person is larger or more important then another is way beyond me and that the attacks serve no one or anyone purpose orther then to degrade the site and those that use it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166906)
Message 167312 (In Reply to Message 167267)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Nov 15, 2005 02:09 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
rebel , if I (and others) had my way you would definately be allowed to vote. You have always been respectful and I think there isn't a single person here that would deny that fact.
I agree with you, the site was working quite well until some felt it was in their best intrest to start raising a ruckus about who can post where. Now the site is slowly sinking away into nothingness. I think as DP1 has said, we need to get back to helping those in need and quite worrying about who is posting where. We are all adults here, and if we can't be respectful to each other, then steve can simply ban us, but to change the nature of the site just to satisfy a few seems a shame.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167267)
Message 167360 (In Reply to Message 167271)
Posted by Renunciation
on Nov 15, 2005 05:51 PM | Also by Renunciation
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Bahrain |
Do you know anyone that does?
The only people I know who have a problem with the Other Side are those who do not fit the profile of posting there. I think they have more of a problem that the Other Side exists than how it is being moderated.
My Op...........
Rensterama
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167271)
Message 167375 (In Reply to Message 167360)
Posted by PVulcan
on Nov 15, 2005 10:25 PM | Also by PVulcan
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I don't have a problem with how the 'other side' operates, seems smooth to me!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167360)
Message 167380 (In Reply to Message 167360)
Rensterama
Posted by dp1
on Nov 15, 2005 10:53 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I hate to state the obvious, but if the other side did not exist Steve wouldn't have a need for this entire website:-)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167360)
Message 167381 (In Reply to Message 167360)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 15, 2005 11:17 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I think they have more of a problem that the Other Side exists than how it is being moderated.
Give the man a gold star:-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167360)
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: N/A,
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.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166878)
Message 167859 (In Reply to Message 167820)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Nov 22, 2005 09:13 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
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.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167820)
Message 167899 (In Reply to Message 167820)
Posted by amberleaf
on Nov 23, 2005 01:55 AM | Also by amberleaf
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: West Virginia,
Country: United States |
What is really sad about this is that the RSO's rarely even post in the Other Side anymore. I wonder if some even know what is posted there. Or, they like me and mostly read in General. There are so many current posts in General they don't even all fit on the front page. You have to click on more posts to find the rest!
Even those who have said who is welcome to post. They are barely posted in. It is really sad. I have been doing moderation in forums for a few years now, but have yet to see one this bad.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167820)
Message 167904 (In Reply to Message 167859)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 23, 2005 04:24 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Orolan, has anyone ever told you that you can be long winded at times?
More than once. But unlike some folks, I don't "talk" for 30 minutes and end up never saying a thing. If I did that, I would be a politician;-))
When has a moderated forum EVER been free of censorship?
True. This will be addressed further down the page.
BUT DO SOMETHING!
This one too will be addressed later, but we're flirting with rejection and warnings here for "questioning" the moderator's action (or inaction in this case).
It seems that certain posters have an almost carte-blanche approval to post whatever the want without their posts being edited or rejected.
Like you said, every moderated forum has some censorship. And as I said, that censorship will have a particular slant to it. Seems you found it. Gold star for you.
I think the truth here is that steve is trying to protect the feelings of the non-RSO's
Does seem that way. I guess they whine a lot more to him than we do;-))
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.
I looked at a clay model yesterday of the 2008 Saleen S7 along with the spec sheet. Positively sinful machine. Looks great. Does it work? Heck no. It's a concept. That's what this invitation scheme is. It doesn't "work", because it doesn't exist. Where's the debate forum? The voting area? Who have you invited, debated about and approved? We're stuck in neutral here, coasting along. I see a hill up ahead and when we get to it, the whole thing will stop. Which I believe is the true agenda.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167859)
Message 167938 (In Reply to Message 167899)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 24, 2005 02:56 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
What is really sad about this is that the RSO's rarely even post in the Other Side anymore.
Actually there's decent amount of activity in there from the regular RSOs. Far more activity then in the V&SC. But it's hard to debate issues from one side. We need the other point of view to make it work.
Even those who have said who is welcome to post. They are barely posted in.
Rabbit has 10 posts in the last week there. I have 9. Renunciation has 3 and then a handful of people like you, your husband, Poet, iastatso etc have a couple posts each.
Thing is the current setup forces all activity out into the General Forum. That's why the active threads run off to the second page. Threads that should be in The Other Side are posted in the General Forum so the POs and LEOs can respond to them. Of course that opens up the probability that a hatemonger will jump in with their two-cents worth. But I guess that's the idea. After all, without us they wouldn't have anything to talk about;-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167899)
Message 168002 (In Reply to Message 167938)
Posted by amberleaf
on Nov 25, 2005 08:36 AM | Also by amberleaf
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: West Virginia,
Country: United States |
I know Orolan. Everything you stated is correct. It just really makes no sense and is rather nerve wracking. Maybe I don't deal well with change? Actually, I don't deal well with change LOL.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167938)
Message 168051 (In Reply to Message 168002)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 26, 2005 02:18 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Actually, I don't deal well with change LOL.
Change is a good thing, when it is needed or serves a purpose. Barring sex offenders from V&SC was such a change. Stricter enforcement of the rules is needed and can be a good thing if it is a fair and impartial enforcement. Everything else, well, I haven't seen a good reason for them yet.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168002)
Message 168133 (In Reply to Message 167938)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Nov 28, 2005 02:21 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Rabbit has 10 posts in the last week there.
And if you read most of my posts (or at least any of the threads I have started) I activly ENCOURAGE those people that are not granted immeadiate access to post in the other side to respond. Yes, I could have posted some of those in the general forum, but I felt the issue (especially the "legal defenses" issue) was geared solely for the RSO's, but it absolutely HAD TO HAVE the input from the LEA or the post was doomed from the beginning.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167938)
Message 168206 (In Reply to Message 168133)
Posted by dp1
on Nov 29, 2005 02:26 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Can one of you guys email me when you get this forum figured out? I have some topics that I'd like to bring up, but of course I am not allowed to post there. I won't be participating much in forums where LE and PO are not welcome that's common sense. All this foolishness is very distracting. I never realized all the games people play. I'm here to exchange information. Either I can or I can't. It's pretty simple. Think about the readers. Who cares about all this foolishness? Get the topics out and discuss them hopefully with some accurate information. With all the important issues sex offenders have to deal with one would think arguing about who should and who should not post in their forum then banning the people that have the most information....well....you see where I'm going.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168133)
Message 168216 (In Reply to Message 167904)
Posted by steve
on Nov 29, 2005 06:38 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
Free-flowing open communication isn't important? Are you saying you want scripted dialogue?
You misinterpreted what I wrote. I probably didn't communicate what I meant very well. I explained that here, after you posted the message I am replying to.
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.
The rule in place is that posting to that forum is restricted, though any thread creator can state in the initial post additional users or types of user they're open to participating in the thread. Permanent guests will be implemented as soon I get a chance. My best guess is this weekend.
So why are POs barred? Simple question.
Because a lot of people in law enforcement wouldn't fit the criteria.
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?
No, because I think that's appropriate and tolerable coming from a peer.
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?
I have a lot on my plate and some things I need to deal with are taking priority.
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.
That's fine by me. Unless others feel the need to discuss, I'll assume that's not necessary and re-evaluate if users voice a need for it in the future.
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?
I meant moderated in that it's only used for its intended purpose. Moot now anyway.
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...
You can post it to The Other Side and in your initial post state that POs are invited to respond.
I'll update everyone when I implement permanent guest access or do or consider anything else relevant.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (167904)
Message 168248 (In Reply to Message 168216)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Nov 29, 2005 10:25 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Thank you for responding to what at least some of us feel is an important site issue. I now have something to look forward to this comming Monday (that being those that never should have been barred from posting in the other side finally being given their posting privledges back).
Does this mean that soon we may find users being able to bypass the moderation que again (of course they would still be moderated, just after the fact like it used to be)? The discussions seem to be dragging on forever under the current implementation and since I came here to learn and share information, this becomes quite tedious.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168216)
Message 168334 (In Reply to Message 168248)
Posted by steve
on Dec 01, 2005 01:25 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
I expect to reinstate the privilege of bypassing the moderation queue at some point soon.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168248)
Message 168369 (In Reply to Message 168334)
Posted by rabbitreborn
on Dec 01, 2005 02:40 PM | Also by rabbitreborn
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Thank god.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168334)
Message 168376 (In Reply to Message 168216)
Posted by dp1
on Dec 01, 2005 03:44 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Because a lot of people in law enforcement wouldn't fit the criteria.
True. But Orolan's question was specific to POs; NOT deputies, NOT ICE agents, NOT FBI, etc...
Most RSO issues are either directly or indirectly related to supervision/prison. POs work these issues daily. It seems self defeating to ban them just because a DEA agent isn't suited, or a traffic cop for that matter, to discuss relevant issues.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168216)
Message 168484 (In Reply to Message 168376)
Posted by orolan
on Dec 03, 2005 02:21 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Most RSO issues are either directly or indirectly related to supervision/prison.
Fact is that most RSOs here either are on supervision or have been on supervision. And we have no idea how many RSOs are out there reading but not posting either because they are afraid or because their conditions prohibit them from doing it. Granted the latter are in violation just by reading but that's a matter for another debate. Fact is they may very well see a question asked that they wouldn't DARE ask their PO for fear of it being misinterpreted. The resultant answers by DP1 or DTC may be just the thing they needed to see. Whether it was what they wanted to see or not;-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168376)
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
|
|
|
