TGC feedback thread

B0jangles

I've noticed that this forum has become increasingly hostile and insular in the last few weeks/months - I mean stuff like this is being posted without comment from the forum regulars:

stitcheddepin wrote: »

I disagree with you fine sir. sex for male and female is quite different, both physically and emotionally. A lady is more attached to the act of sex, if she has had numerous male partners ( someone threw 20 out there) for one night stands she would be feeling a little empty and depleted inside, having let so many different male members come and go. a male can become detached, he can perform, finish and be forgotten with it. a lady cannot, unless she is a real whore.
I would like to marry a lady who hasn't been left empty and devoid of her soul by numerous pricks, one that is willing to take me in and give me all her soul.
nothing immature about it, but a bird who sleeps around 'for the fun of it' isn't worth pissing on in my opinion. she is definitely tarnished

EdenHazard wrote: »

Analogy makes sense, women are the proverbial locks, while men are trying to get in. A girl who has been with too many guys, das not it mane, not wife material at all I'm afraid despite the protests of white knights and the likes this is just how it is.

Its sad to see the mindset of a lot of girls in this thread, seems finding a good girl these days is impossible, they all wanna 'have fun' which translates to having sex with as many people as they can.

paddy1990 wrote: »

The age of consent is 17. I take issue with saying 18. I've seen gorgeous 17 year olds so I think 17-25 is fair, with 25 pushing it due to the lifestyle some women today have.

The legal age in the UK is 16.

paddy1990 wrote: »

Thanks. I'll have as many prime and fertile 17 year olds as possible. You can have the over 30s. Hopefully the children are healthy - we know that the chances of things going wrong do go up as women age.

I would have posted here occasionally in the past but would not do so anymore, to be honest I feel pretty uncomfortable even reading some of the current threads. When I see posts like the above in threads where the forum mod is actively posting at the same time and apparently seeing nothing wrong with this kind of stuff, it sends a very clear message.

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

paddy1990 wrote:

The age of consent is 17. I take issue with saying 18. I've seen gorgeous 17 year olds so I think 17-25 is fair, with 25 pushing it due to the lifestyle some women today have.

The legal age in the UK is 16.

What's wrong with that? Going by his username his age is likely 23 or 24.

B0jangles

iptba wrote: »

What's wrong with that? Going by his username his age is likely 23 or 24.

Did you see the subsequent post?

Liam McPoyle

Tbh with the couple of busy threads that are running ATM the main idiots posting in them (no need to name names as it's painfully obvious) have a history across Boards of either being idiots or trolling.

I'd suggest that most people that post in here are fairly well balanced but those few should be ignored because the fact of the matter is that they are either trolls or mongos, neither of which are worth wasting time answering.

LEIN

I lurk here a lot rather than posting and I feel that there's nothing to fix. I enjoy reading through the threads and have rarely been put off by something.

I will have more time to contribute more over the coming weeks and look forward to joining in.

Pawwed Rig

skallywag wrote: »

Is it just me or do a large percentage of the women which come on here to post tend to swear a lot, and generally come across as quite bitter and angry? i.e. when compared to the language used / general behaviour of men which post over on TLL ...

Mod note - It is just you and please don't generalise

skallywag

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Mod note - It is just you and please don't generalise

Fair enough it may not be representative of the majority of women who post here, but as an example there have been multiple occasions in just the last two days when this has happened!

I more than welcome the contributions but I really don't see why it has to involve fcuk this, of fcuking that. You don't tend to come across the same on TLL forum when men post.

RDM_83 again

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Mod note - It is just you and please don't generalise

Its a relevant enough point, I've posted in a tLL a bit and never been sanctioned but you could be sure as be dammed if a thread became as dominated by a male perspective as occurs on threads like this one
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91230732
there would have been action an awful lot sooner, to a lesser extent thats been seen in the last few days, perhaps clamping down on the semi-trollish comments by male users would help the issue (though its hard to work out what is trolling and what is real opinion sometimes)

I am not arguing for a restriction on posting by woman, or for here to turn into a misogynistic cess pool, but perhaps there could be less of the shaming style posts for users that manage to offend the rent a mob that pops up in the controversial threads

iptba

RDM_83 again wrote: »

but perhaps there could be less of the shaming style posts for users that manage to offend the rent a mob that pops up in the controversial threads

Yes, people can be quite acerbic and other people can often pile in to join them. I remember I started a thread a few years ago about not liking jokes about men being concerned about their health, and "man flu" in particular, posting jokes that I had just been sent. The first three pages or so were a torrent of people belittling it and acerbic replies getting lots of likes. That could certainly put many people off sharing their thoughts, experiences, etc.

TheBeardedLady

skallywag wrote: »

Why not report such a post as soon as you see it, in only takes 5 seconds. The vast majority of men on this forum don't support this carry on either, an I've reported such posts myself.

I've done so in the past and you're right, I should.

Pawwed Rig

Even if we did decide to restrict the to male posters (which noone in the mod team has any appetite for btw) it would be impossible to enforce (you or I could be female for all we know). Also it would probably breach every site rule and we would have Dav pm'ing us asking wtf was going on. So that is not going to happen.

Threads like the one you mentioned were a mixed bag. On one hand there was some interesting discussion on it but on the other it was a troll magnet and turned into a run away mess a couple of times. That thread has the most infractions and bans of any since I became a mod.

The trolls will come unfortunately and leave a mess in their wake for a while. It is not appropriate to ban someone for trolling once as bans are usually an accumulation of warnings and infractions. Therefore a troll can often last a good while on the forum before we can eventually justify a permanent ban. The regular posters would tend to recognise them fairly quickly and ignore them but they can still drag a thread or topic into the gutter. This happens on nearly every forum on boards.

Some good feedback folks. Did people not see this thread until today? It has been open for a month and we only had 13 posts up until yesterday :pac:. It confirms my suspicion that people don't look at the stickies:P

TheBeardedLady

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its a relevant enough point, I've posted in a tLL a bit and never been sanctioned but you could be sure as be dammed if a thread became as dominated by a male perspective as occurs on threads like this one
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91230732
there would have been action an awful lot sooner, to a lesser extent thats been seen in the last few days, perhaps clamping down on the semi-trollish comments by male users would help the issue (though its hard to work out what is trolling and what is real opinion sometimes)

I am not arguing for a restriction on posting by woman, or for here to turn into a misogynistic cess pool, but perhaps there could be less of the shaming style posts for users that manage to offend the rent a mob that pops up in the controversial threads

It's very hard to read many of the posts in here and I've often seen red when I have. People shouldn't come in here all guns blazing but some of the stuff is just.....

Here's one of many examples:

We went out for 4 months and had a lot of sex eventually but it was the last time I'll go out with a girl that old again.

I want her back when she was young and excited about doing new stuff. When the topic of anal sex came up, she was like, "i tried that with other bfs and didn't like it so no" to give one example. Holding off sex was because "i had a lot of one night stands when i was younger, i've matured now" and so on. I could give quite a few more examples.

Most guys want young fresh, almost naive women, not old washed up girls who've "had their fun" and are past prime, hitting their 30s. Different mindsets is the problem.

Respect to the female posters for keeping their cool like they did. I couldn't respond. Whether he's trolling or not doesn't matter; "Don't be a dick" is a very basic rule of every charter and how much more of a dick can you be (yes, I have reported this post and I'm assuming I'm not the only one).

I'd argue that for the most part, female posters do a very good job of restraining themselves considering but sometimes their cool is lost and yes, they should be sanctioned like anyone else.

I don't think they're the biggest problem in here though.

Edit: Would this guy only receive a warning if he was trolling? If so, why?

ancapailldorcha

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that there have appeared a few posters who shall remain nameless who seem to be posting, err.. posts below the usual standard. Other than that, so far so good.

Shakespeare's Sister

iptba wrote: »

I think tGC is providing an important forum where men can highlight and discuss issues they are concerned about.

These are often issues they would often not get the opportunity to discuss much or at all with others or, if they did, it would likely only be with a single individual or small group.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was an avid supporter of this forum when it was pitched six years ago (had a look at the forum requests).
Don't make the mistake of thinking the criticism people have of things at the moment = criticism of the above. We have partners, sons, fathers, brothers, nephews, male friends. I only have brothers. Most of my family is male actually. Fairness and balance towards men is important to me; I hate all the unfunny man flu crap too.

All I and others are saying is: the above can be discussed without the hostility and vulgarity towards women (you'd swear cattle were being spoken about at times). The (minimum of) three posters who are most prominent at the moment are depressing in their hatred, but what's even more depressing is the limited actioning. One was told not to post any more... yet did - churning out the PUA stuff at a rate of knots, and wasn't banned. I thought ignoring a moderator's instruction led to a ban? One got banned for something, which was designed to irk for sure, but was pretty innocuous - certainly not deserving of a ban. The ban got overturned - it's beyond me why he didn't get banned for the myriad of other far more deserving stuff.

I report posts - vast majority of the time it doesn't appear to do anything. The ones I quoted in my last post to this thread actually shocked me. And this is left seemingly unactioned and therefore a message being sent out that it's ok to post this stuff. Not good, really not good. The generic "Stop bickering" posts are like a catch-all towards all posting rather than focusing on the obvious people who start the aggro.

Had a look through just there to quote more stuff. Too depressing though - and slightly nausea-inducing.

skallywag wrote: »

Is it just me or do a large percentage of the women which come on here to post tend to swear a lot, and generally come across as quite bitter and angry? i.e. when compared to the language used / general behaviour of men which post over on TLL ...

Yeh, in TLL there are just trolls who start threads/posts comments designed to rise people. Could you link to some of these bitter, angry, sweary posts?

iptba wrote: »

Men's Rights Activist (sometimes now called Men's Human Rights Activist). Some people think they're not needed as the feminist and the "equality" movement work for equality :rolleyes:

No, in fairness MRA is needed - sometimes it's shorthand for the misogynistic stuff though, the way feminism is shorthand for the misandrist stuff.

TheBeardedLady

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

No, in fairness MRA is needed - sometimes it's shorthand for the misogynistic stuff though, the way feminism is shorthand for the misandrist stuff.

Yeah, my "you may as well change the place to the MRA forum and be done with it" wasn't thought through and I take it back as MRA, just like Feminism, isn't inherently woman-hating. The rest of what I said still stands.

iptba

Thanks Shakespeare's Sister.

Pawwed Rig

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I report posts - vast majority of the time it doesn't appear to do anything. The ones I quoted in my last post to this thread actually shocked me. And this is left seemingly unactioned and therefore a message being sent out that it's ok to post this stuff. Not good, really not good. The generic "Stop bickering" posts are like a catch-all towards all posting rather than focusing on the obvious people who start the aggro.

To be honest I have a baby to bath and put to bed when I get home from work so that takes priority over this. The posts were reported 8:30 and have now been actioned less than 2 hours later. I am not sure what level of service you expect from us but I would suggest that a paid service provider would not do it any quicker.

It should also be noted that when you report a post they are all looked at by myself or one of the other mods. If there is no action taken then perhaps others were not as offended as you were. Or there could be action taken that you don't realise. For example a forum ban will have no visible marker on a post.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

One was told not to post any more... yet did - churning out the PUA stuff at a rate of knots, and wasn't banned.

I only told one person today not to post on a thread and he hasn't so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. can you report the relevant post?

Sauve

^^ seconded.

I can assure you that I look at every single reported post from here. Or endeavour to. I also have a job, and other interests outside that.
If a post is not actioned immediately, either nobody has had a chance to get to it, or we've deemed it inactionable.
But rest assured, nothing gets ignored. A lot more goes on behind the scenes that you'll see on the forum.

Shakespeare's Sister

Apologies, I re-read the warning: it actually said "Don't start threads here again" and I misread it as "Don't start on threads here again".

Atrocious posting from that poster though - notorious for it, and replete with PUA out-of-10 stuff. Think he's thread-banned now. Don't know about forum-banned. I get that ye can't just ban someone for one instance of trolling but surely there's no need to be waiting around for trolling and trolling and trolling before anything is done?

Although I wish people wouldn't take the bait, I have to say. The trolls are primarily the problem though, not the troll-feeders, but the latter do help enable the trolls' existence.

Shakespeare's Sister

Were these posts actioned? They are particularly dismaying.

"And more than likely makes you wait multiple dates before having sex to try to uphold a deceiving perception on a naieve, nice male whereas before they'd have given it up for random guys who gave absolutely no sh!ts about them in less than a few hours in a club and afterwards got thrown aside and disregarded for life."

"Think of it as a useful Darwinian marker: these women probably aren't bright enough to be good breeding stock."
Literally referring to them as if they're cattle/horses.

TheBeardedLady

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Apologies, I re-read the warning: it actually said "Don't start threads here again" and I misread it as "Don't start on threads here again".

Atrocious posting from that poster though - notorious for it, and replete with PUA out-of-10 stuff. Think he's thread-banned now. Don't know about forum-banned. I get that ye can't just ban someone for one instance of trolling but surely there's no need to be waiting around for trolling and trolling and trolling before anything is done?

Although I wish people wouldn't take the bait, I have to say. The trolls are primarily the problem though, not the troll-feeders, but the latter do help enable the trolls' existence.

Do you believe the posters were referring to now are trolls? Are they deliberately provoking or are they merely expressing their opinions?

I think discounting a lot of the posters on here as simply trolls makes light of the issue; I believe some of these posters believe what they're saying.

Pawwed Rig

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Were these posts actioned? They are particularly dismaying.

"And more than likely makes you wait multiple dates before having sex to try to uphold a deceiving perception on a naieve, nice male whereas before they'd have given it up for random guys who gave absolutely no sh!ts about them in less than a few hours in a club and afterwards got thrown aside and disregarded for life."

"Think of it as a useful Darwinian marker: these women probably aren't bright enough to be good breeding stock."
Literally referring to them as if they're cattle/horses.

If they were reported then they were assessed by the mods. What action was taken I don't remember. Anyway, this isn't feedback.

Shakespeare's Sister

Yeh I reported them. For them not to be deemed actionable... eh... wow.

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Do you believe the posters were referring to now are trolls? Are they deliberately provoking or are they merely expressing their opinions?

I think discounting a lot of the posters on here as simply trolls makes light of the issue; I believe some of these posters believe what they're saying.

I think a mixture of the two TBL. Having those horrible beliefs but also saying things they know will get a rise (well hopefully - if that's their actual thought process, then... :eek:).

Pawwed Rig

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Yeh I reported them. For them not to be deemed actionable... eh... wow.

Who said they weren't actioned? I said I don't remember. You can be sure they were looked at.

TheBeardedLady

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Who said they weren't actioned? I said I don't remember. You can be sure they were looked at.

Is it not possible to check or something? Would there not be a record of that somewhere like I have a record of my infracted post? When I get an infraction, a PM is sent to me. Would there be no record from your sent PMs, for example?

Not just picking on you as there's 5 mods in here.

Sauve

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Is it not possible to check or something? Would there not be a record of that somewhere like I have a record of my infracted post? When I get an infraction, a PM is sent to me. Would there be no record from your sent PMs, for example?

Not just picking on you as there's 5 mods in here.

I'll check it out tomorrow at a reasonable hour.
You'll have to take my word that I'll look at it and either action it or not. You won't get feedback on another posters' infraction or lack thereof, as that is not something that's generally done. You must be aware that many factors come into our decisions on whether or not to action a particular post, like I said above, there's often a lot more to a situation than you see on the forum.

Shakespeare's Sister

Well whatever the specifics, fair play Pawwed Rig and Sauve for taking things on board on this thread and engaging - appreciated.

Shakespeare's Sister

B0jangles wrote: »

I've noticed that this forum has become increasingly hostile and insular in the last few weeks/months - I mean stuff like this is being posted without comment from the forum regulars.

I would have posted here occasionally in the past but would not do so anymore, to be honest I feel pretty uncomfortable even reading some of the current threads.

One post you quote "I disagree with you fine sir. sex for male and female is quite different, both physically and emotionally. A lady is more attached to the act of sex, if she has had numerous male partners ( someone threw 20 out there) for one night stands she would be feeling a little empty and depleted inside, having let so many different male members come and go. a male can become detached, he can perform, finish and be forgotten with it. a lady cannot, unless she is a real whore.
I would like to marry a lady who hasn't been left empty and devoid of her soul by numerous pricks, one that is willing to take me in and give me all her soul.
nothing immature about it, but a bird who sleeps around 'for the fun of it' isn't worth pissing on in my opinion. she is definitely tarnished"

Hideous. I mean, there's nothing wrong IMO with having a preference for someone who isn't into riding all around them, but why the obnoxious language? Why talk of her in terms of whether worth pissing on or not? Why the assumption that every woman views sex emotionally (and every man views sex as just physical) - even if this tends to be the case, it doesn't mean there can't be exceptions, and it's a bit arrogant to speak for everyone. Why refer to her as tarnished as if she's a fecking brooch? Why use the term "whore"?
Ugly ugly disturbing stuff.

Shakespeare's Sister

Some of the stuff on the "Is it self defeatist to think some men are destined to be alone" thread is utterly psychotic... yet one of the chief ringleaders of this pure and utter misogyny... is back here?

It's laughable how people say Boards is "just as bad" for men. Really and truly laughable. :rolleyes:

Pawwed Rig

Hi Shakespeares Sister. We have your feedback and thank you for providing. No need to reiterate your point over and over again. There is alot more going on in the forum than what you have issues with