I tried to make friends and had the police at my flat because of it!

[Chinaski]

. I gave him a pass because Jeremy played along with him and didn't in one single sentence voice disagreement or discomfort in these messages when he pretended to be Amy.

You're aware that this is how online predators are often exposed, right? They are lured by deception into feeling comfortable with saying something incriminating. As underhand as this tactic might be, Mark did clearly reveal himself and continue to do so. A paedophile does not get a free pass because the undercover cop pretended to appreciate his advances. I don't think anyone reading those dms is going to come away thinking he was safe to be around, and they'd be right.

These criticisms aren't "bashing the site" btw, there have been a fair few people who come here with bad intent or to pour poisonous content and it is fundamentally they who harm the site, l don't think it's controversial to observe this and appreciate that the reflexive defence of the site at literally all times is not going to improve the place any.

 

[RainAndSadness]

You're aware that this is how online predators are often exposed, right? They are lured by deception into feeling comfortable with saying something incriminating. As underhand as this tactic might be, Mark did clearly reveal himself and continue to do so. A paedophile does not get a free pass because the undercover cop pretended to appreciate his advances. I don't think anyone reading those dms is going to come away thinking he was safe to be around, and they'd be right.

These criticisms aren't "bashing the site" btw, there have been a fair few people who come here with bad intent or to pour poisonous content and it is fundamentally they who harm the site, l don't think it's controversial to observe this and appreciate that the reflexive defence of the site at literally all times is not going to improve the place any.

I didn't give him a pass because his interaction happened with Jeremy. I gave him a pass because his messages were simply not ban-worthy given the context at the time and the possibility of autism playing a role in their interaction with other people. And he wasn't insisting, he wasn't demanding, he wasn't forceful in anyway and it was a 100% consenting conversation between two adults, which Jeremy then published as "harassement" to make this forum look bad. I couldn't know that he would post deeply concerning content one year later. And if Amy aka Jeremy sincerely was bothered, they would have reported the messages instead of just publishing it all, leaving out important context.

And yes, it's indeed bashing. When I talk with you privately about my stance and my personal beliefs and why I make certain decisions, you seem to understand and respect my line. And I consider your criticism a lot more nuanced in that case. You know that I wouldn't give Mark a space if I knew he was dangerous, come on. But when you talk about the forum in public, you go hard not just on me but on staff in general and I consider your criticism very unfair because you literally implied I knew about Marks most prolematic remarks and just decided to give him a pass anyway because that's who I am, apparently - enabling potential predators, right? You claimed I have bad intentions. Your criticism isn't my problem, it's your subtle accusation that we just tolerate all of the issues you've described. And that's not true.
I mean just look at your post:

it's probably worth acknowledging that it's not good practice to allow such people to continue to post their violent fantasies, repeat their sleazy DM conduct and be relentlessly and unambiguously creepy for two whole years after it first became apparent imho, l get that people feel overly defensive towards this site but sometimes it really does not help itself in terms of housekeeping.

If you really think we don't do our best to keep this forum a safe place, why are you here? I really don't know. And honestly I'm tired of you repeating the same talking points over and over and over again.

 

[Chinaski]

The talking points get repeated because they emerge, again l think it's quite odd that it's my post you're focusing on here when l don't think I'm alone in being particularly uncomfortable with mark the ghost for a long time, l don't think it's a controversial position to state that if very obvious creeps are going to be allowed to post here then people who are actual enemies of the site are perhaps going to use it against the site as a whole. It wouldn't be too big a deal for mod staff to recognise this at this stage because ultimately it is they, the users who come with bad intent, who are "bashing" the site, not me.

You refer to me making "the same talking points" in plural, the point I'm making is essentially singular in that it's pointless crying persecution about bad stuff on the site being used against it, the site itself must take some responsibility for its content. This is surely not controversial. I suspect by "same talking points" you essentially refer to the misogynistic content on here but l haven't laboured that one here, l shouldn't be seen as the spokesperson on these matters at this point given the number of other users who have publicly registered their distaste for it.

If you really think we don't do our best to keep this forum a safe place, why are you here? I really don't know.

This bit is quite telling. Huge "I wish you'd fuck off" vibes here, not that l particularly give a shit on a personal level but it's not as if my content is the most offensive output here is it, maybe I'm just the biggest pain in the arse to you personally. If you think this forum is better off without my apparently destructive contribution you do have the power to make that call.

 

[RainAndSadness]

The talking points get repeated because they emerge, again l think it's quite odd that it's my post you're focusing on here when l don't think I'm alone in being particularly uncomfortable with mark the ghost for a long time, l don't think it's a controversial position to state that if very obvious creeps are going to be allowed to post here then people who are actual enemies of the site are perhaps going to use it against the site as a whole. It wouldn't be too big a deal for mod staff to recognise this at this stage because ultimately it is they, the users who come with bad intent, who are "bashing" the site, not me.

You refer to me making "the same talking points" in plural, the point I'm making is essentially singular in that it's pointless crying persecution about bad stuff on the site being used against it, the site itself must take some responsibility for its content. This is surely not controversial. I suspect by "same talking points" you essentially refer to the misogynistic content on here but l haven't laboured that one here, l shouldn't be seen as the spokesperson on these matters at this point given the number of other users who have publicly registered their distaste for it.


This bit is quite telling. Huge "I wish you'd fuck off" vibes here, not that l particularly give a shit on a personal level but it's not as if my content is the most offensive output here is it, maybe I'm just the biggest pain in the arse to you personally. If you think this forum is better off without my apparently destructive contribution you do have the power to make that call.

Once again: I wasn't aware of the content Mark posted. Nobody reported it. We didn't intentionally give him a space to post his questionable content, it simply slipped through the cracks. It's odd that you complain about me apparently giving Mark a pass when you knew about the problematic posts that were written a few months ago. Then why didn't you report it? As I said in the past, people complaining the most about the forum are the ones who don't use the report function at all. It's almost as if you're just nitpicking for fun. And considering you ignored my previous offer to help out because you seem to have enough ressources left to browse the forum for harmful content and that's what we need, I think that's not unlikely.

Nobody is crying persecution. We're rightfully pointing out that they are cherry-picking one person out of ~26'000 members and pretending they're representative of this community. Once again you're strawmanning important points. And look, one weirdly-creepy guy in 2 years in a community of how many thousands of members isn't as bad as you make it out to be. We're talking about singular cases here, alright. But your criticism that I've quoted before makes it look like we have a systemic problem with questionable people and that's just not true.

As I already said, your criticism is simply unfair and dishonest as it's based on false accusations. You're not that much better than the fixers who make up stories about me when you literally claim we intentionally gave Mark a space in this forum after he posted these concerning posts - the same posts that resulted in a ban as soon as I noticed them and Nemo can confirm I reached out to them for more context before he received the ban. Like he was gone as soon as I knew about those posts but you're still criticising it. You're essentially criticising that we don't have enough moderators but there is nothing I can do about that. I just posted another reminder that we're looking for moderators yesterday. And I can't blame anyone who doesn't want to help out because everyone here deals with their own demons and I understand why people don't want to get into the spotlight of the fixers. TJ, a telegram mod just recently had a visit of the police because the fixers thought it's funny to call the cops on him when he posted a goodbye thread in this forum. Yeah, not that surprising we're slightly understaffed. I can just repeat myself again: your criticism is unfair.

 

[Chinaski]

None of these things posted above address anything I've mentioned, it's diversionary and the wanton use of "strawmanning" is not a "press x to win" button Very Online people think it is.

I've not made any mention of number of staff, idk why that's an issue in the discussion. I'm not condemning you for a decision made two years ago, I'm suggesting that how the material on the website is in the public domain and essentially represents the website it might be wise to accept the fact that the site is responsible for its content and this may require heightened vigilance given the scrutiny. That point remains, however much you seek to divert.

"you're no better than the fixers" is absolutely fucking ridiculous and if you put the effort in to getting shut of the posters who actually spam the place with offensive content as you appear to be doing to ostracise me right now this conversation wouldn't even be taking place.

 

[RainAndSadness]

None of these things posted above address anything I've mentioned, it's diversionary and the wanton use of "strawmanning" is not a "press x to win" button Very Online people think it is.

Your strawman: 'we're crying persecution'. Actual claim: they are using one bad example as a representative example of the community. Nobody complained that people are talking about the forum but they're doing it in bad faith.

I've not made any mention of number of staff, idk why that's an issue in the discussion. I'm not condemning you for a decision made two years ago, I'm suggesting that how the material on the website is in the public domain and essentially represents the website it might be wise to accept the fact that the site is responsible for its content and this may require heightened vigilance given the scrutiny. That point remains, however much you seek to divert.

I've been trying to explain to you that simply nobody saw the posts of Mark that led to his ban. And nobody reported it. You on the other hand claimed I ignored the bad behavior intentionally.

"you're no better than the fixers" is absolutely fucking ridiculous and if you put the effort in to getting shut of the posters who actually spam the place with offensive content as you appear to be doing to ostracise me right now this conversation wouldn't even be taking place.

And if I understood you correctly you accused us of giving Mark a space to exhibit his creepy behavior, intentionally. That's how I read your criticism of the current situation. We "allowed" it to happen, except we didn't. We simply weren't aware of his posts and that's it. We didn't allow anything and I immediately issued a ban when I learned about it. Case closed, it's not as exciting as you made it out to be.
Which offensive posters do you think need attention right now? Maybe instead of blaming us for anything, you could report some stuff once in a while, it would reduce the workload a lot. Thanks in advance.

 

[emgrl]

Once again: I wasn't aware of the content Mark posted. Nobody reported it. We didn't intentionally give him a space to post his questionable content, it simply slipped through the cracks. It's odd that you complain about me apparently giving Mark a pass when you knew about the problematic posts that were written a few months ago. Then why didn't you report it? As I said in the past, people complaining the most about the forum are the ones who don't use the report function at all. It's almost as if you're just nitpicking for fun. And considering you ignored my previous offer to help out because you seem to have enough ressources left to browse the forum for harmful content and that's what we need, I think that's not unlikely.

Nobody is crying persecution. We're rightfully pointing out that they are cherry-picking one person out of ~26'000 members and pretending they're representative of this community. Once again you're strawmanning important points. And look, one weirdly-creepy guy in 2 years in a community of how many thousands of members isn't as bad as you make it out to be. We're talking about singular cases here, alright. But your criticism that I've quoted before makes it look like we have a systemic problem with questionable people and that's just not true.

As I already said, your criticism is simply unfair and dishonest as it's based on false accusations. You're not that much better than the fixers who make up stories about me when you literally claim we intentionally gave Mark a space in this forum after he posted these concerning posts - the same posts that resulted in a ban as soon as I noticed them and Nemo can confirm I reached out to them for more context before he received the ban. Like he was gone as soon as I knew about those posts but you're still criticising it. You're essentially criticising that we don't have enough moderators but there is nothing I can do about that. I just posted another reminder that we're looking for moderators yesterday. And I can't blame anyone who doesn't want to help out because everyone here deals with their own demons and I understand why people don't want to get into the spotlight of the fixers. TJ, a telegram mod just recently had a visit of the police because the fixers thought it's funny to call the cops on him when he posted a goodbye thread in this forum. Yeah, not that surprising we're slightly understaffed. I can just repeat myself again: your criticism is unfair.

I'd help you guys out, if you need an extra mod. I'm sure it's not easy keeping this place up and running. I'd like to help, in any way I can.

 

[Dot]

Thnk a pnt tht = b-ing mde rght nw = tht heightnd levl of scrutny 2 hlp wth th/ publc imge wld b easr wth mre mods or if mre ppl wll rport offnsve cntent whn thy C it s/ = brght 2 mods attentn

Mods r nt alwys actvely wtchg all thrds bcse tht = fll-tme jb -- = collabr8tve effrt btwn mods & usrs on frum 2 rport sch usrs & sch cmmnts

Slf hve persnlly bannd mltple unsavry charctrs recntly bt tht wll nt b notcd bcse thy wre nt allwd on ste lng enuf 2 caus sch issus -- & ths ws bcse othr usrs rportd thm

SaSu mns a lt 2 mny ppl s/ = importnt fr evry1 2 wrk 2gethr 2 kp th/ plce b-ing th/ supportve & sfe cmmunty tht ppl wnt & valu

 

[Chinaski]

Ah so it's my fault for not reporting? Well as you're aware the last time l hit the report button on an obvious scammer the mod dealing with it publicly told me to "fuck off" and allowed the scammer to continue for several days, similarly my experience of reporting obvious creep-posts has led to the offensive post itself being deleted but the account to remain, schmoozing and lovebombing their way into dms with a laundered reputation - this is in fact more harmful than doing literally nothing, as people can no longer check post history of who they are interacting with and see things which may give warning. This, again, is another constructive suggestion to deal with reports in a way which prioritise the experience and safety of the site users which l hope is taken as the assistance you requested. Or you can assume I'm on some Goddam Prolifer payroll out to dismantle this safe haven, up to you l guess.

 

[𖣴 nadia 𖣴]

cn only ask tht u kp rportng mysgny if u C it

Am persnlly oftn dealng wth rports of eithr mysgny &/or misndry & neithr r accptble

Dude. It's not as easy as you make it out to be. When people who oppose this forum cherry-pick bad people - and they exist in every forum and every social media platform - in their bad-faith mission to tear this forum apart and pretend the entire community is like this, that's not our fault. Do you think I let that member roam this forum on purpose? No.I didn't know the extend of his problematic behavior. But nobody reported the obviously concerning posts of Mark in the first place and I can't personally monitor every single member that's active on this forum because right now, at this point, it's already an energy and time consuming duty to keep this place safe and we do our best to keep it that way. I would highly appreciate if you stopped bashing the forum whenever you find a chance to do so because you have no fucking idea how hard it is to moderate a space like this and enforce the rules in a fair way. Look, I wish I could just kick people I consider problematic. I don't do and I give members the benefit of the doubt, to a certain degree, until I can't justify their presence any longer. And when I found out about some of Marks posts, I immediately did what I should have done earlier and banned them. What more do you want me to do?

I don't want to be pulled back into an argument, but since I was brought up to corroborate, l should mention that l did report a few of Mark's comments a long time ago, and his death threat thread was brought to mods attention by someone because it was deleted:

Thread 'What happened to my thread about sending a death threat that I don't mean?' https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...ending-a-death-threat-that-i-dont-mean.88075/

 

[Anonymus]

At least you have it in common that you want the best for this forum. The only difference between you is that some of you demand more while others seem unable to give more of themselves.

From here the approach is simple, how can we all improve the forum? talking about the past charging each other against each other brings nothing.

I suggest opening a separate debate, outside of this thread to discuss everything in a more constructive way and without hurting anyone's sensibilities. Is the Sanctuary a good place?

//

Al menys teniu en comú que voleu el millor per aquest fórum. L'única diferéncia entre vosaltres es que uns exigeu més mentre els altres semblen no poder donar mes de si.

A partir d'aquí el plantejament es simple, com podem millorar entre tots el fórum? parlar del passat carregant els uns contra els altres no aporta pas res.

Suggereixo obri un debat apart, fora d'aquest fil per debatre tot plegat d'una manera més constructiva i sense ferir les sensibilitats de ningú. El Santuari és un bon lloc?

 

[Dot]

Ah so it's my fault for not reporting? Well as you're aware the last time l hit the report button on an obvious scammer the mod dealing with it publicly told me to "fuck off" and allowed the scammer to continue for several days, similarly my experience of reporting obvious creep-posts has led to the offensive post itself being deleted but the account to remain, schmoozing and lovebombing their way into dms with a laundered reputation - this is in fact more harmful than doing literally nothing, as people can no longer check post history of who they are interacting with and see things which may give warning. This, again, is another constructive suggestion to deal with reports in a way which prioritise the experience and safety of the site users which l hope is taken as the assistance you requested. Or you can assume I'm on some Goddam Prolifer payroll out to dismantle this safe haven, up to you l guess.

Frstly apolgies tht ths = lng & apprci8 ur patnce -- am awre tht blcks of txt frm slf r nt easy 2 nor pleasnt 2 read


2 clarfy @Chinaski tht ws nt a targtd attck on u - am syng tht collabrtve effrt mkes protctng th/ ste & ppl on th/ ste easr & mre effcnt

Slf d / nt knw whch mod sd tht 2 u & Y -- am srry tht happnd 2 u -- bt wld agree tht postve rlatnshp btwn mods & membrs = importnt fr ppl 2 fl cmfrtble approachng mods wth issus & subsequntly trustng tht thse cncrns wll b acknwldgd & actd on whre possbl

A persnl Xample recntly ws tht thre wre multple ppl in cht dscussng hw thy wre unhppy wth mods -- whle slf ws in cht thre wth thm -- slf askd wht bettr modratn wld lk lke 2 thm & thy mentnd thngs lke reactng 2 certn thngs mre quckly & makng sre tht thngs wre pt in spoilrs & nsfw cntent = monitrd e.t.c -- whch slf hve mde priorty --- agn mre mods r bein rcruitd 2 try 2 mke sre tht happns also

On tht sme dy or dy aftr thre ws usr opnly dscussng wth cht membrs tht thy wre 16 yrs old & thy hd also mentnd thr age on a thrd & no1 rportd tht persn in eithr plce dspte dscussng thr age wth thm -- slf sw tht usr l8ter whn goin thrgh cht lgs & bannd thm --- am nt 'blamng' othr membrs per se bcse = modr8trs jb aftr all & cn undrstnd tht mny ppl d/ nt wn2 gt othrs in trble e.t.c bt @ same tme tht = Y collabr8tve effrt = bettr fr evry1 bcse minrs b-ing allowd 2 pst & intract also reflcts bdly & damges ste as thy shld nt b hre -- bt pls undrstnd tht thre wll b frstratns on own prt also in sch circmstnces whle simltansly dealng wth thse critcms

If = is of n.e reassrnce 2 knw - issus rgardng scammrs r b-ing heavly dscussd rght nw amng mods & xtra measres r b-ing takn 2 try 2 mke spottng thm earlr easr - espclly wth th/ recnt N scms -- if u or @𖣴 nemo 𖣴 or n.e els hve negtve xpernce rportng smethng t/ 1 mod pls remmbr tht thre = team s/ u cn stll tke thse cncrns 2 sme1 els -- nt evry issu = takn dirctly 2 RaS & n.e.1= hs own perspctve & =humn &/or cn mke mstkes

Rgardng creepy psts -- agn - a crpy pst ds nt necssrly warrnt a ban bt kpng tht pst visble = nt hlpfl eithr s/ thre = obvsly a balncng act 2 ply thre bt = lkely tht warnngs wld hve bn distrbutd in thse instncs & rpeatd b-havrs wld thn rsult in a ban - rgardlss am sre th/ collctve mod team wll b takng lessns frm MtG & wht hs happnd arnd hm

Lke @Dead Ghost sd - evry1 cares fr ths frum whch = importnt -- rgardng dscussng issu in Sanctry nt evry1 hs accss 2 tht prt of ste

 

[Anonymus]

Lke @Dead Ghost sd - evry1 cares fr ths frum whch = importnt -- rgardng dscussng issu in Sanctry nt evry1 hs accss 2 tht prt of ste

Is it possible to write the sentence that mentions me in another way please?, I'm saying this because the translator doesn't do very well, thanks.
If it's not possible, nothing happens, I think you warn at the beginning of the text, but I'm not sure.

//

És possible escriure la frase que fa menció a mi d'una altre manera si us plau?, ho dic perquè el traductor no se'n surt pas gaire bé, gràcies.
Si no és possible no passa rés, crec que al principi del text ho adverteixes, però no n'estic segur.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

Is it possible to write the sentence that mentions me in another way please?, I'm saying this because the translator doesn't do very well, thanks.
If it's not possible, nothing happens, I think you warn at the beginning of the text, but I'm not sure.

//

És possible escriure la frase que fa menció a mi d'una altre manera si us plau?, ho dic perquè el traductor no se'n surt pas gaire bé, gràcies.
Si no és possible no passa rés, crec que al principi del text ho adverteixes, però no n'estic segur.

I think it says "like dead ghost said, everyone cares for this forum which = important --regarding discussing issue in Sanctuary, not everyone has access to that part of the site"

 

[Anonymus]

I think it says "like dead ghost said, everyone cares for this forum which = important --regarding discussing issue in Sanctuary, not everyone has access to that part of the site"

Thank you so much.

It is true that few people have access to the Sanctuary (the idea was that the discussion was not public facing the outside to be able to debate more freely), it was just an idea.

//

Moltes gràcies.

Es cert que poca gent te accés al Santuary (la idea era que la discussió no fós pública de cara al exterior per poder debatre amb més llibertat), només era una idea.

 

[Chinaski]

Frstly apolgies tht ths = lng & apprci8 ur patnce -- am awre tht blcks of txt frm slf r nt easy 2 nor pleasnt 2 read


2 clarfy @Chinaski tht ws nt a targtd attck on u - am syng tht collabrtve effrt mkes protctng th/ ste & ppl on th/ ste easr & mre effcnt

Slf d / nt knw whch mod sd tht 2 u & Y -- am srry tht happnd 2 u -- bt wld agree tht postve rlatnshp btwn mods & membrs = importnt fr ppl 2 fl cmfrtble approachng mods wth issus & subsequntly trustng tht thse cncrns wll b acknwldgd & actd on whre possbl

A persnl Xample recntly ws tht thre wre multple ppl in cht dscussng hw thy wre unhppy wth mods -- whle slf ws in cht thre wth thm -- slf askd wht bettr modratn wld lk lke 2 thm & thy mentnd thngs lke reactng 2 certn thngs mre quckly & makng sre tht thngs wre pt in spoilrs & nsfw cntent = monitrd e.t.c -- whch slf hve mde priorty --- agn mre mods r bein rcruitd 2 try 2 mke sre tht happns also

On tht sme dy or dy aftr thre ws usr opnly dscussng wth cht membrs tht thy wre 16 yrs old & thy hd also mentnd thr age on a thrd & no1 rportd tht persn in eithr plce dspte dscussng thr age wth thm -- slf sw tht usr l8ter whn goin thrgh cht lgs & bannd thm --- am nt 'blamng' othr membrs per se bcse = modr8trs jb aftr all & cn undrstnd tht mny ppl d/ nt wn2 gt othrs in trble e.t.c bt @ same tme tht = Y collabr8tve effrt = bettr fr evry1 bcse minrs b-ing allowd 2 pst & intract also reflcts bdly & damges ste as thy shld nt b hre -- bt pls undrstnd tht thre wll b frstratns on own prt also in sch circmstnces whle simltansly dealng wth thse critcms

If = is of n.e reassrnce 2 knw - issus rgardng scammrs r b-ing heavly dscussd rght nw amng mods & xtra measres r b-ing takn 2 try 2 mke spottng thm earlr easr - espclly wth th/ recnt N scms -- if u or @𖣴 nemo 𖣴 or n.e els hve negtve xpernce rportng smethng t/ 1 mod pls remmbr tht thre = team s/ u cn stll tke thse cncrns 2 sme1 els -- nt evry issu = takn dirctly 2 RaS & n.e.1= hs own perspctve & =humn &/or cn mke mstkes

Rgardng creepy psts -- agn - a crpy pst ds nt necssrly warrnt a ban bt kpng tht pst visble = nt hlpfl eithr s/ thre = obvsly a balncng act 2 ply thre bt = lkely tht warnngs wld hve bn distrbutd in thse instncs & rpeatd b-havrs wld thn rsult in a ban - rgardlss am sre th/ collctve mod team wll b takng lessns frm MtG & wht hs happnd arnd hm

Lke @Dead Ghost sd - evry1 cares fr ths frum whch = importnt -- rgardng dscussng issu in Sanctry nt evry1 hs accss 2 tht prt of ste

I mean no disrespect to you personally here but if the answer to these problems is "report to mods" it's got to be acknowledged that there are very obvious reasons as to why people will decide against doing that. The mods are individuals with their own judgement just like any other person on here and when you see a mod faving posts stating "99% of sexism is against men" and then responding with an unfunny meme about snowflakes being "triggered" when challenged on it, when mods publicly defends an incel's use of offensively objectifying terminology to describe women as sex objects when people raise their obvious discomfort with it (but do tell someone off for "invalidating" the incel in the same thread), when mods defend one individual's right to have a misogynistic spree-killer as an avi despite the obvious offence this causes because Free Speech (Rodger also being described as "suicide activism"), when incels can post about how their problems equate to paraplegia and terminal illness and the only person receiving disciplinary action is the person refuting this obvious bullshit, when a mod hug-reacts an incel posting about his actual murder fantasies but then deletes a post critical of incel attitudes for being mean, these things kind of add up and you will see it's not about number of staff, it's about attitudes of staff and where lines of tolerance are drawn. You cannot blame people for not reporting things to staff who consistently establish a dubious line of tolerance, particularly when staff were clearly made aware of Mark the ghost being a creep long before he got booted.

This is not meant as an attack, it's your site, do what you want, but my point remains that so long as offensive output is essentially encouraged here, people who can read it will use it against the site. If you're sick of being considered an incel sister site, get rid of the nasty incel shit. If you don't want objectively bad content (which even users of the forum often find offensive) being used as a weapon by people with a target on you, then you have to actively moderate that content, if you want this place to be a forum for mature and rational discussion on a taboo subject rather than a holding area for public posts which present us as a secondary forum for incels, a smorgasbord for creeps, or a dumping ground for angsty bigotry then this requires a shift in attitude from that regularly presented by staff and a heftier intervention when these things present.

Again, you can take this constructively as is intended, or you can do the "banned for prolifing" nonsense, up to you. You can even choose to just ignore it, it's your site after all - but the site is responsible for the content within, and when actually suicidal people log on here and see some bloke asking for advice on strangling women, a daily thread about someone's penis, yet another diatribe about how women are shallow, vapid, despicable creatures, they're probably not going to want to stick around.

 

[Unhirable]

Maybe he will make friends in prison

 

[RainAndSadness]

The mods are individuals with their own judgement just like any other person on here and when you see a mod faving posts stating "99% of sexism is against men" and then responding with an unfunny meme about snowflakes being "triggered" when challenged on it, when mods publicly defends an incel's use of offensively objectifying terminology to describe women as sex objects when people raise their obvious discomfort with it (but do tell someone off for "invalidating" the incel in the same thread), when mods defend one individual's right to have a misogynistic spree-killer as an avi despite the obvious offence this causes because Free Speech (Rodger also being described as "suicide activism"), when incels can post about how their problems equate to paraplegia and terminal illness and the only person receiving disciplinary action is the person refuting this obvious bullshit, when a mod hug-reacts an incel posting about his actual murder fantasies but then deletes a post critical of incel attitudes for being mean, these things kind of add up and you will see it's not about number of staff, it's about attitudes of staff and where lines of tolerance are drawn.

When you say a mod is defending "offensively objectifying terminology to describe women as sex objects" are you referring to me defending the use of the term slam piece in this forum, which is a gender-neutral slang to describe a sex partner? That's moderators defending incel rhetoric for you? Context.

And about the profile pictures, it's not about someone being allowed to have a "misogynistic spree-killer" as their profile picture, it's about your freedom to use whatever person you want as your profile picture regardless of their ideology and gender. You could as well use Aileen Wuornos or Alec McKinney as your profile picture if that makes you feel better, I personally simply don't care enough to go over the profile pictures and usernames of every single user and apply my own personal moral compass as to what's questionable and what isn't. But this has nothing to do with us specifically tolerating inceldom yet you frame it that way.

And yeah, we have members in this forum who struggle because they're unable to experience intimacy and affection - both men and women by the way, even trans people. Just recently a trans woman wrote a goodbye thread and explained that they were unable to experience sexual pleasure the way women do a result of their trans-affirming surgery - and it was one of the reason why she chose her exit. And if people say that causes tremendous emotional pain, that's their right. There is no hierarchy of pain in this forum. We all suffer together and instead of nitpicking how someone describes or rates their pain we could just listen and try to come up with some empathy for them. The problem is when someone describes the extend of their emotional pain, you respond to them and play it down and that's not okay - even when their problems are related to sex and dating.

I don't know what your other examples refer to but I'm kinda tired of refuting vague criticism with no substance - and once again these are all singular cases. We're talking about one person with a "problematic" profile picture and one person using the term slam piece in a thread like one year ago and you combine these very specific cases to us systematically tolerating "offensive incel rhetoric". You certainly understand how to frame not so controversial disagreements as big mean stuff. And look - if these things you've listed hint to a very obvious incel forum and apparently I'm now one of them, why are you active on an incel forum then?

 

[Chinaski]

Someone did use aileen wuournos as a profile pic, someone also used Carl panzram, these are also bad, but as l say, up to you, your site and it is ultimately what you make it.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

There was an inflammatory post about how disgusting women on their periods smell and how most of us wipe back to front and how unhygienic we are. It was allowed to stay up because the poster mentioned they had ocd. I don't understand decisions like that.

 

[Unhirable]

There was an inflammatory post about how disgusting women on their periods smell and how most of us wipe back to front and how unhygienic we are. It was allowed to stay up because the poster mentioned they had ocd. I don't understand decisions like that.

What is wrong with that?

 

[freedompass]

Someone did use aileen wuournos as a profile pic, someone also used Carl panzram, these are also bad, but as l say, up to you, your site and it is ultimately what you make it.

Isn't it all of our site including you? The site is not just Rain's and the mods'. They administer and moderate it sure, but it's a community we all contribute to. If we want change or improvements be a part of it, don't sit on the sidelines and gripe.

It pains me to see you unfairly criticising them. I just don't see how that is in any way productive.

I do often enjoy your comments and humour but you seem quite negative. Also you never really talk about yourself or show vulnerability. Which does leave me wondering, like Rain, why you're here. No fuck off vibe, just honestly curious.

 

[emgrl]

I feel like this has been drawn out…

Everyone, if you feel some sort of way about a member or what they post/send in DMs, profile pics, anything that makes you uncomfortable- tell a mod/admin immediately. Don't try to escalate the situation, it only makes things worse. Keep in mind, mods/admins will only take action or ban if it's justified. Doesn't mean they didn't take it seriously, but it's up to their discretion who should be booted or not. You also don't know what measures have been taken, such as a warning etc.

Again, to all the mods/admins, thanks for keeping this site up and running, and us as safe as we can possibly be ♡

 

[Suicidebydeath]

Thank you mods/admins.

 

[Chinaski]

.

I do often enjoy your comments and humour but you seem quite negative. Also you never really talk about yourself or show vulnerability. Which does leave me wondering, like Rain, why you're here. No fuck off vibe, just honestly curious.

You're asking why I'm here? Why not ask the people who repeatedly post the poisonous stuff which you yourself have remarked upon as being inappropriate why *they* are here? Also, people here should surely be at liberty to discuss themselves only as far as they are comfortable, and it's surprising that of all the people on here it's me you seem keen to challenge with some weird eligibility criteria. My problems are absolutely none of your business.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

Isn't it all of our site including you? The site is not just Rain's and the mods'. They administer and moderate it sure, but it's a community we all contribute to. If we want change or improvements be a part of it, don't sit on the sidelines and gripe.

It pains me to see you unfairly criticising them. I just don't see how that is in any way productive.

I do often enjoy your comments and humour but you seem quite negative. Also you never really talk about yourself or show vulnerability. Which does leave me wondering, like Rain, why you're here. No fuck off vibe, just honestly curious.

How does someone change things if they can't criticize?

 

[freedompass]

How does someone change things if they can't criticize?

Who's saying they can't criticise. I feel @Chinaski's criticism of Rain and the mods on this occasion is unfair and I only ever hear him criticising or calling people out, which is what I meant by negative.

@Chinaski. I literally only meant what I said. I wondered why you're here. And I wasn't moved to say anything until you started saying to Rain 'it's your site, do as you please'. I just felt that was quite a revealing remark. That's all.

 

[akirat9]

I only ever hear him criticising or calling people out,

is yes . i only see him do so too .

 

[Unhirable]

Who's saying they can't criticise. I feel @Chinaski's criticism of Rain and the mods on this occasion is unfair and I only ever hear him criticising or calling people out, which is what I meant by negative.

@Chinaski. I literally only meant what I said. I wondered why you're here. And I wasn't moved to say anything until you started saying to Rain 'it's your site, do as you please'. I just felt that was quite a revealing remark. That's all.

There is nothing wrong with being negative and there is nothing wrong with criticising the mods.

That is how it should be. They serve us and if the criticism is even 0.01% valid it is okay to be said.

 

[Chinaski]

Who's saying they can't criticise. I feel @Chinaski's criticism of Rain and the mods on this occasion is unfair and I only ever hear him criticising or calling people out, which is what I meant by negative.

@Chinaski. I literally only meant what I said. I wondered why you're here. And I wasn't moved to say anything until you started saying to Rain 'it's your site, do as you please'. I just felt that was quite a revealing remark. That's all.

Again, you can accept it as constructive given the things l described or you can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, l don't mind - just a bit weird for you to state this forum is shared equally between us whilst also suggesting l keep my trap shut about the tolerance of offensive content on this site until l evidence enough "vulnerability" to satisfy you. Maybe offer that scrutiny to the people who deliver that content, given you have also registered your discomfort with it.