Steve violates rule #5

[steve25805 126,021]

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

I saw that one one coming a mile off and have been waiting for it. It was so transparently obvious that linking the two was going to be your aim from the start

Egwalrus was insisting upon his right to engage in open flame wars with fellow mods, which does enormous reputational damage to any forum, and which Admin explicitly stated was not acceptable behaviour for mods. In fact, he made Egwalrus's continuation as a mod conditional upon his ceasing such behaviour, his refusal of such ultimately leading to his modship being removed. But we have no rules against ordinary members criticising us, though clearly if this extends to the point of becoming a highly destructive personal vendetta with no end in sight that damages the forum, Admin will eventually call a halt to it, as has been demonstrated. But, probably on the assumption that it would burn itself out of it's own accord, Admin was initially prepared to let Egwalrus make his criticisms as an ordinary member. Personally, I think that just muddied the waters.

I, however, in this instance was acting wholly within my role as a mod in safeguarding the forum from potentially highly questionable content, and in no way engaging in flame wars with my colleagues. I was doing my duty as as a mod in protecting this place from the risk of being potentially taken down or suffering legal or legislative hassles.

There is a massive difference between consent and non-consent when it comes to erotica, especially if the latter were ever to involve harm or injury being cruelly inflicted upon unwilling victims. The authorities everywhere are far more likely to go after something non-consensual. I'm sure you must understand that.

Most of the membership can certainly see that except for a small number of malcontents on a mission.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Guest

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

My girls rarely say no to anything, we are in it for the fun, and want as much fun as we can get out of it. If I started doing things that were not consented to, they wouldnt stay around for very long. Writing about non-consensual issues would have the same effect here, with no apparent control over things like this, people would just leave. Every day we hear things on the news, women getting molested and attacked, most times by some arsehole out on parole for the same or similar offence. I'm pretty sure we don't need to see or read the same material on a forum like this.

[pbl 42]

I saw that one one coming a mile off and have been waiting for it. It was so transparently obvious that linking the two was going to be your aim from the start

Great! I am glad to see that I am communicating effectively.

Egwalrus was insisting upon his right to engage in open flame wars with fellow mods, which does enormous reputational damage to any forum, and which Admin explicitly stated was not acceptable behaviour for mods. In fact, he made Egwalrus's continuation as a mod conditional upon his ceasing such behaviour, his refusal of such ultimately leading to his modship being removed. But we have no rules against ordinary members criticising us, though clearly if this extends to the point of becoming a highly destructive personal vendetta with no end in sight that damages the forum, Admin will eventually call a halt to it, as has been demonstrated. But, probably on the assumption that it would burn itself out of it's own accord, Admin was initially prepared to let Egwalrus make his criticisms as an ordinary member. Personally, I think that just muddied the waters.

This is where you are wrong. Before he lost his modship, Egwalrus never engaged in an open flame war. He pointed out you were wrong to call Goldenpiss as cheap and for that you and Admin have scapegoated him for all the damage you did to this forum.

I, however, in this instance was acting wholly within my role as a mod in safeguarding the forum from potentially highly questionable content, and in no way engaging in flame wars with my colleagues. I was doing my duty as as a mod in protecting this place from the risk of being potentially taken down or suffering legal or legislative hassles.

There is a massive difference between consent and non-consent when it comes to erotica, especially if the latter were ever to involve harm or injury being cruelly inflicted upon unwilling victims. The authorities everywhere are far more likely to go after something non-consensual. I'm sure you must understand that.

Most of the membership can certainly see that except for a small number of malcontents on a mission.

On the legal merits of the fantasy in question, I have no problem with moderators such as you working asking authors such as Brutus to be mindful of the potential legal implications of such stories involving non-consensual relationships. However, that is no license to publicly insult another members' fantasies. When you are a mod, you represent the Admin and the whole forum, which means you don't accuse another member of psychopathy. There is a proper and professional way of handling this, such as sending a polite private message to the member in question.

[steve25805 126,021]

Pbl, that BS over Egwalrus is old news now. Why are you trying to start it up again? And he was constantly criticising the actions of another mod, criticisms which went well beyond defending someone against being called cheap, and which were against the express orders of the site Admin. It pretty much did amount to a flame war. And did enormous damage to the forum. For which he was ordered to stop, but decided instead to take his ball away.

So it is not I who have damaged this forum. If it were do you think I'd still be here? Admin has a lot of experience in running such places, you know.

And I never accused another member of psychopathy, I merely stated that Brutus's dominant women characters appeared to have almost psychopathic traits. Many respected authors write about psychopaths all the time. To say as much does not amount to calling the author a psychopath.

Frankly, you appear to be one of this forum's small number of malcontents on a mission.

Most others here seem to find this constant nitpicking over minor criticisms - I have as much right to a personal opinion as anyone else - rather tiresome and many have said so.

You are in danger of boring people. Your imput to this place certainly appears to be entirely negative of late. One wonders what you are hoping to achieve with your continuation of this campaign.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Guest

[steve25805 126,021]

This thread has been temporarily closed pending moderator discussions.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Guest

[Admin 14,788]

I stand by Steve's decision on this. He didn't delete the post or ban the user. It was simply a warning not to take it too far. Being that we are a fetish forum we need to be more careful about the kind of content that we allow as we are scrutinized more critically, and we don't want to attract unwanted attention. I don't have an issue with stories or fantasies but we need to ensure that they don't cross the line into things like child porn and rape as we already straddle the line when it comes obscenity laws.

- Admin

Edited July 28, 2016 by Guest

[steve25805 126,021]

This thread has been locked permanently.

Admin has made his decision, and no useful purpose can be served by using this thread to pursue old vendettas.