Censorship/Moderating Standards

[carlos marvado]

I see that the thread below has been locked, and a post which I posted on page 14 of same (after Judge Judy's post) has mysteriously disappeared.

https://www.escort-ireland.com/board...=80069&page=14

I find this veil of secrecy that has descended somewhat disconcerting. I recall that when forum managers were appointed to manage the community moderators, it was emphasised to us that community moderators should not act in a high handed manner and should be transparent in their dealings with members of the community. It was envisaged that when a post was deleted or edited that the author would be informed by pm as to the reason the post had been moderated and what, if any rules had been broken. Similarily, friendly warnings should be issued by pm, before the more formal warnings or infractions were issued.

Now I was never a great one for sending dozens of pms all over the shop myself, but then I did come up with those big red "Moderator's Comments" which still litter the older threads..........and you can't get much more open or transparent then that.......apart from posting in brialle for the visually impaired that is. So are forum managers and/or community moderators backsliding now on the concept of forum moderation.

Given that I have'nt received a friendly pm, an unfriendly pm, an official warning or an infraction, or any form of censure for that matter, could somebody please come on here, and explain why a post was deleted?........why a thread was locked?......what rules (if any) were broken?.........what steps have been taken to ensure that I do not unwittingly make the same mistake again?

Not agreeing with somebody's opinions as expressed in a post which infringes none of the stated rules is no valid reason to engage in moderating that post or thread. Or in case it was deleted accidentaly, maybe one should make copies of ones posts in future.

[dr love]

If anything I think moderating is more relaxed here , nor is there any backsliding on forum rules .
As for a pm not been sent I'm sure there is a reason as to why ,you can always pm a manager or mod to find out .: doc

[carlos marvado]

If anything I think moderating is more relaxed here , nor is there any backsliding on forum rules .
As for a pm not been sent I'm sure there is a reason as to why ,you can always pm a manager or mod to find out .: doc

Pms are'nt open and transparent Doc..........for one it's against the rules to forward the contents of a pm or to post it on a forum without the consent of the parties involved. A post on an open forum was deleted and a thread was closed........a "moderator's comment", which is both open and transparent would have dealth adequately with the situation........unless of course, E-I do not want to be publicly seen to be going beyond the rules to stiffle valid debate?

But on one thing, I am sure we can both agree........moderating must certainly be a more relaxed activity than when it was first introduced almost three years ago. For starters, a good proportion of those who had any opinions of worth and who were prepared to extend their participation here beyond "Last one to post wins" are no longer here for one reason or another, or have become a lot quieter. Then again, being able to moderate without having to justify ones actions to the members would also tend to simplify the whole task.

I'm a curious sod................are there still real debates in the Patcave, or do people follow orders, as in posting links to E-I's sister sites in their signatures?

[Forrest]

Pms are'nt open and transparent Doc..........for one it's against the rules to forward the contents of a pm or to post it on a forum without the consent of the parties involved. A post on an open forum was deleted and a thread was closed........a "moderator's comment", which is both open and transparent would have dealth adequately with the situation........unless of course, E-I do not want to be publicly seen to be going beyond the rules to stiffle valid debate?

But on one thing, I am sure we can both agree........moderating must certainly be a more relaxed activity than when it was first introduced almost three years ago. For starters, a good proportion of those who had any opinions of worth and who were prepared to extend their participation here beyond "Last one to post wins" are no longer here for one reason or another, or have become a lot quieter. Then again, being able to moderate without having to justify ones actions to the members would also tend to simplify the whole task.

I'm a curious sod................are there still real debates in the Patcave, or do people follow orders, as in posting links to E-I's sister sites in their signatures?

I'm a curious sod too. Does the Patcave really exist.

E-I amend the rules to suit the situation, Carlos. After all, it's their site, and they can say and do what they like.

I might not contribute to "Last one to post wins" or "DOKO" but, for the most part, I'm happier posting a few pictures, jokes and sexy photos, than engaging in threads that are dominated by an almost exclusive club, who are dismissive of anyone that doesn't agree with their views.

[carlos marvado]

I'm a curious sod too. Does the Patcave really exist.

Indeed it does Brother Forrest, but like Camelot, it's glory days are now past and it is rapidly fading into the stuff of legend. It's halls no longer sound to the great debates (some of which were rather long winded due to one of it's nobler knights), the philosophy of Brother Luther, the gaiety of Brother RicFlair, Brother Westie's constant goings and comings and threats to bring the roof down around our ears, and the odd wench who might give us the glad eye as she lifted up her petticoats.

But the band of brothers was ground down by the machine and order, hierarchy and structure replaced socialist consensus. I even found that I no longer had the heart to write poetry anymore......a great loss to humankind.

[Doozer]

I assume it was deleted carlos as you were nominating an escort regulater from the community which was deemed innapropriate .

[Forrest]

I assume it was deleted carlos as you were nominating an escort regulater from the community which was deemed innapropriate .

I don't know how anything in the deleted post by Carlos could have been deemed inappropriate,
unless someone has an ability to read between the lines and see something that's not there.

I'm sure those involved in deleting it will give a full and frank explanation when they are back on duty.

[carlos marvado]

I assume it was deleted carlos as you were nominating an escort regulater from the community which was deemed innapropriate .

On a point of order Brother Doozer, in fact I did'nt nominate anyone as an escort regulator. Brother Gentelmandave posted the names of three members, whom he regarded as suitable candidates and I stated that I could add a fourth person to his list, who could fulfil the task with both hands tied behind his back. I also stated that a retired escort would make a very good escort regulator on the basis that to catch a poacher, a poacher turned gamekeeper would be suitably qualified.

So, I neither nominated anyone for this fictitious position nor did I even come up with the notion of an escort regulator...........I merely tried to open up a debate.

Given the activities that are advertised on this site and also debated on these forums, I would be interested to hear how a topic that does not directly involve either sex or money can be deemed inappropriate....maybe I'm just not debauched enough for this site......now that would be a first!

[thehighwayman]

Pms are'nt open and transparent Doc..........for one it's against the rules to forward the contents of a pm or to post it on a forum without the consent of the parties involved. A post on an open forum was deleted and a thread was closed........a "moderator's comment", which is both open and transparent would have dealth adequately with the situation........unless of course, E-I do not want to be publicly seen to be going beyond the rules to stiffle valid debate?

But on one thing, I am sure we can both agree........moderating must certainly be a more relaxed activity than when it was first introduced almost three years ago. For starters, a good proportion of those who had any opinions of worth and who were prepared to extend their participation here beyond "Last one to post wins" are no longer here for one reason or another, or have become a lot quieter. Then again, being able to moderate without having to justify ones actions to the members would also tend to simplify the whole task.

I'm a curious sod................are there still real debates in the Patcave, or do people follow orders, as in posting links to E-I's sister sites in their signatures?

Obviously I can't go into any great detail about what goes on in there. You know yourself what goes on in the Patcave stays in the Patcave Believe it or not life went on when the old mods left No it didn't turn into a yes man society It might be hard to believe but the new mods have a mind of their own too like former mods Plenty discussions and humour just like before. The links in the signatures isn't an order. That was one of the mods idea to promote the other sites. I think it was a great idea. It's not compulsary for a mod to have it. By the way I'm sitting on your chair these days. The first time I sat on it one of those darn butt plugs was on it

[carlos marvado]

The links in the signatures isn't an order. That was one of the mods idea to promote the other sites. I think it was a great idea. It's not compulsary for a mod to have it.

Well that's great Brother Highway that all mods now sing off the same hymn sheet..........as I recall back in the day, it was a major task to try to reach a consensus on occasions.

But seeing as you clarified the issue of another community moderator coming up with the signature links and the others deciding to follow suit, when exactly did the role of community moderators change from volunteer site helpers who modded the forums according to written rules to promoting escort sites across the British Isles?