Steve violates rule #5

[jodi69 19]

The rules say "Don't criticize the fetish behavior, confessions, pics, experiences, or fantasies of other members" and Steve replies with this here.

Don't know quite what to make of this. In some places the story is very hot, and the idea of females demeaning and dominating guys by pissing on them does have a certain appeal.

But the undertones of fear in the victims and apparent pleasure these women take in deliberate cruelty to those who do not appear to be getting off on it, seems almost psychopathic to me. And the undertones of slavery and abuse are somewhat disturbing.

Certainly, though, your ideas are highly original.

If any of us said it he'd be the first to delete it and chastise us. Why does he continue to be allowed to be above the rules? :banghead:

[steve25805 126,116]

If you believe I have broken the rules, you need to report me to Admin via PM. If you read the story in question, you'd see that what I said was not at all unreasonable. I found the cruelty and non-consenting sex slaves in abject fear to be a somewhat disturbing theme and the female characters to be almost psychopathic. That does not mean that it is a bad story.

But the rule against criticising the fantasies of others has limits. Mods have a duty to police and occasionally delete highly questionable content that could get the site closed down or into severe legal difficulties. The themes here involving women abusing non-consenting sex slaves who tremble with fear and have no rights, treating them with great cruelty, does sail close to the wind when intended as erotica. So I felt it was necessary to draw attention to that, by way of polite warning.

[jodi69 19]

If you believe I have broken the rules, you need to report me to Admin via PM. If you read the story in question, you'd see that what I said was not at all unreasonable. I found the cruelty and non-consenting sex slaves in abject fear to be a somewhat disturbing theme and the female characters to be almost psychopathic. That does not mean that it is a bad story.

But the rule against criticising the fantasies of others has limits. Mods have a duty to police and occasionally delete highly questionable content that could get the site closed down or into severe legal difficulties. The themes here involving women abusing non-consenting sex slaves who tremble with fear and have no rights, treating them with great cruelty, does sail close to the wind when intended as erotica. So I felt it was necessary to draw attention to that, by way of polite warning.

I agree with you about the content. However I followed the rules and just moved on. :banghead: That's what you always preach. The limits of the rules seem to be arbitrary and related to what you like and don't. If this would have been a criticism about peeing on carpet you would have lost it. :yawn:

[jodi69 19]

If you believe I have broken the rules, you need to report me to Admin via PM.

This forum is for complaints and this is my complaint about you. Don't be bossing me around and demand that I do something else when I have followed the rules. :mad:

[steve25805 126,116]

I agree with you about the content. However I followed the rules and just moved on. :banghead: That's what you always preach. The limits of the rules seem to be arbitrary and related to what you like and don't. If this would have been a criticism about peeing on carpet you would have lost it. :yawn:

Mods are not in a position to be able to ignore anything. We have a duty to protect the site from questionable content, and this is very close to being such, but perhaps not close enough to justify deletion. I have asked for the advice of Wetman on that. And I would crack down on anyone criticising the pee fetish interests of anyone else, regardless of whether it is my thing or not. But deliberate cruelty against unwilling victims is far more questionable than anyone just peeing anywhere. I intend to also ask for the views of Admin in regards to this story.

[steve25805 126,116]

This forum is for complaints and this is my complaint about you. Don't be bossing me around and demand that I do something else when I have followed the rules. :mad:

No one is accusing you of breaking any rules. But if you think I have broken any, complaining about it here is unlikely to achieve much. You'd need to report me to Admin.

[jodi69 19]

You just wish to shove my complaint out of view so it can be ignored without others seeing it.

[steve25805 126,116]

You just wish to shove my complaint out of view so it can be ignored without others seeing it.

Strange that I have not deleted it then, no?

As I made clear, only Admin has the power to take any action against me or make me retract anything if he judges me to have broken forum rules. He also believes that these public arguments do tremendous harm to the forum. But since you won't tell him about your complaint and prefer to try and trigger yet another flame war, I have reported the story to him myself as well as your complaint, and asked him to read the story, read my comments, and read your complaint thread here. Then he can decide if I have done anything wrong.

[wetmanjf 2,787]

Jodi69,

The rule states "Don't criticize the fetish behavior, confessions, pics, experiences, or fantasies of other members" Steve is simply stating his opinion about a Fictional story. Everyone has a right

to their opinion. I don't think he is directly Criticizing The behavior of the author simply because the story is a complete work of fiction. Just My Humble Opinion

Wetman

[glad1 2,832]

Not the kind of pissing match I'd prefer to jump into, but I have to side with Steve on this one. He's doing exactly what his job as moderator calls for, to monitor this site for questionable content and protect it from legal difficulties. I don't think any of us want this place shut down.

Jodi, since you've already called him on the carpet, it might be best if this matter is settled there.

[steve25805 126,116]

In fairness to her, Jodi69 does have a point. It is against rule 5 for members to criticise the fantasies as well as confessions of other members. And an erotic story certainly usually constitutes a fantasy of some kind.

But it is also true that mods have a duty to protect the forum from legal difficulties that might arise from questionable material. And the story includes acts of wanton cruelty being inflicted upon terrified sex slaves for fun and without them giving their slightest consent. How far could this go without crossing any red lines? I mean, what if one or more of the characters killed one of these slaves as part of their pleasure? We certainly could never allow that, in spite of there being no specific rules against fictional characters killing others for erotic pleasure. Not saying that Brutus would ever even think of writing such a thing, but am just using it as an example of how far some could potentially go if mods cannot exercise their judgement.

But mods circumventing rule 5 is perhaps only permissable in the context of an official moderator warning, and I did not think that the risque nature of the story was serious enough to warrant that, certainly not on my own authority alone. So I chose to make an informal critique instead, praising aspects but remarking upon the questionability and potentially disturbing nature of some of the riskier aspects, writing it as a personal opinion.

In choosing to make an informal criticism in that way I concede that I may therefore have broken the letter of rule 5.

So I will concede that one to you, Jodi69. I will delete my criticism in the original story thread, but will leave this thread intact, so your quote of my comments here will not be removed unless you wish it to be.

[CrissyP 790]

Are we going to reach a point where members are afraid to post a comment for fear of being criticized or ripped apart by someone who doesn't see eye to eye with them. People need to learn to agree to disagree without consequences.

[Scot_Lover 1,877]

The only thing I can add to this is that Steve said it was "psychopathic and somewhat disturbing" to him personally, his personal feelings on the subject in question. I am the same, some things I don't like, or don't like doing disturb me too. I have learned to " hush my mouth" when it comes to expressing my feelings, and just don't bother adding input on things I don't like, or what other people like.

Does this mean a mod cannot show personnal feelings and expressions in the context of a post? Or does every comment a mod makes be open to attack and be distorted into something out of context entirely?

Being a mod is hard enough, but being a mod that has every post dissected is getting a bit tiresome.

[Scot_Lover 1,877]

Argh, can't win .......

I was interested in a mod position once, couldn't do anything about it due to moving house (and mediocre Internet where i'm going), guess I'll have to think about it some more.

[steve25805 126,116]

The only thing I can add to this is that Steve said it was "psychopathic and somewhat disturbing" to him personally, his personal feelings on the subject in question. I am the same, some things I don't like, or don't like doing disturb me too. I have learned to " hush my mouth" when it comes to expressing my feelings, and just don't bother adding input on things I don't like, or what other people like.

Does this mean a mod cannot show personnal feelings and expressions in the context of a post? Or does every comment a mod makes be open to attack and be distorted into something out of context entirely?

Being a mod is hard enough, but being a mod that has every post dissected is getting a bit tiresome.

I agree that my comments were taken entirely out of context, but in light of recent furores I have tried to be excessively fair in my response. And yes, to have every little thing dissected in this way would become very tiresome. I guess it is a matter of judgement where a reasonable critique of something crosses a line into rule-breaking.

But I and I am sure Wetman respect your judgement, SL, and would back you if your posts as a mod started being dissected like this by someone on a mission. Please don't let my conceding of a point to Jodi69 put you off.

[steve25805 126,116]

Are we going to reach a point where members are afraid to post a comment for fear of being criticized or ripped apart by someone who doesn't see eye to eye with them. People need to learn to agree to disagree without consequences.

I agree, but I don't think you need to worry. This particular poster is motivated by a belief that I am an unsuitable mod and is seeking to prove it. I doubt whether any issue would have been made out of anybody else making that same critique. In the end I deleted the critique and replaced it with a more official sounding moderator warning against going too far.

But I reiterate that in doing that I was going out of my way in an attempt to be ultra-reasonable and fair because I am a mod about whom recent furores have raged.

In reality, when it comes to Rule 5, we have to be more nuanced and draw a distinction between a reasoned critique based on personal feelings, and wholesale moral judgementalism against someone's fetish interests, which is what Rule 5 is actually designed against.

No other members need be afraid of posting reasonable and balanced criticisms. They will not be sanctioned for it. Rule 5 will be enforced sensibly and not excessively.

If any other member had made those comments, I would not have sanctioned them for it, certainly never on my own authority, because disquiet about cruelty or non-consenting slavery or anything like that does not constitute any kind of wholesale criticism of someone's pee fetish interests.

[jodi69 19]

I agree, but I don't think you need to worry. This particular poster is motivated by a belief that I am an unsuitable mod and is seeking to prove it. I doubt whether any issue would have been made out of anybody else making that same critique. In the end I deleted the critique and replaced it with a more official sounding moderator warning against going too far.

If someone doesn't like something you've said they're out to get you and should be discredited? :banghead:

[wetmanjf 2,787]

If someone doesn't like something you've said they're out to get you

This makes no sense at all. I don't like a lot of things people say..online and in real life..But it in no way implies I'm "Out to get them"

Wetman

[jodi69 19]

This makes no sense at all. I don't like a lot of things people say..online and in real life..But it in no way implies I'm "Out to get them"

Wetman

You missed the point. :yawn:

[steve25805 126,116]

If someone doesn't like something you've said they're out to get you and should be discredited? :banghead:

I never said anything of the kind.....:yawn:

[ForgotPass 39]

Steve gave his two-cents in a pretty constructive and even polite way. He never personally attacked the author and only said that the context of cruelty in the writing seemed disturbing to him. I honestly can't see what's wrong with this, only that he could have phrased it slightly less harshly.

[pbl 42]

Perhaps Steve should create a second, nonmoderator account if he wants to inartfully comment on fantasies he doesn't approve of? That way, nobody confuses these ideas for those of an official moderator.

[steve25805 126,116]

Perhaps Steve should create a second, nonmoderator account if he wants to inartfully comment on fantasies he doesn't approve of? That way, nobody confuses these ideas for those of an official moderator.

I do not intend sneaking under the radar by posting under an anonymous name, especially with something so relatively innocuous. And I was trying to ward off in as informal a way as possible any move across red lines. Pedantic objections to that made something more formal necessary instead.

And it is not a case of fantasies I do or do not approve of. I see many that don't really do it for me but I just ignore them. It is a case of using moderator judgement to ensure that fantasies do not cross any red lines into the kind of areas that could result in legal difficulties for Admin, or for the site being taken down. The stories had not crossed such lines, but their content was such that there was always the danger that they could do. After all, there is a world of difference between consent and non consent, and the fantasies themselvses involved massive non-consent from terrified individuals being treated with cruelty.

Surely you can see the potential danger here? It is not a question of my own personal tastes at all, but of what could be considered risky for the forum itself.

[Pete2304 36]

This is getting silly. Steve is a mod. Any forum needs a couple of people keeping an eye on it especially one such as this which has a lot of sexual content. People are going to write about things that are often nothing but fantasy in their minds and things that even given the chance they wouldn't wish to do in reality.

However, when it gets to the point of people writing about abuse etc there has to be a line drawn somewhere. No mods on a forum like this would end up with at some point people talking about underage, forced sex etc etc and that sort of crap just isn't needed.

Steve made a judgement call as is his right to do so. Personally I'd rather something questionable was picked up on than leaving people to post whatever they want.

This is no different to arguing over a refereeing decision. Everyone will have their views as to what is too much and what isn't but this forum needs to stop falling out with each other when most people are basically singing from the same hymn sheet.

[pbl 42]

I do not intend sneaking under the radar by posting under an anonymous name, especially with something so relatively innocuous. And I was trying to ward off in as informal a way as possible any move across red lines. Pedantic objections to that made something more formal necessary instead.

And it is not a case of fantasies I do or do not approve of. I see many that don't really do it for me but I just ignore them. It is a case of using moderator judgement to ensure that fantasies do not cross any red lines into the kind of areas that could result in legal difficulties for Admin, or for the site being taken down. The stories had not crossed such lines, but their content was such that there was always the danger that they could do. After all, there is a world of difference between consent and non consent, and the fantasies themselvses involved massive non-consent from terrified individuals being treated with cruelty.

Surely you can see the potential danger here? It is not a question of my own personal tastes at all, but of what could be considered risky for the forum itself.

Well put. Too bad the you and the admin are too blind to extend the same logic to Egwalrus.