Fin Fang Foom & HooBoy's Policy Change

[Guest Kalifornia]

FFF This has never been a "open" forum. How can you have an "open" forum that is moderated?

 

Many threads have been locked by HB or Daddy. When you particapte you need to be willing to accept this potential action taken will be taken. It is HB right to do what he wants with his site.

 

Mark -Kalifornia

 

"I *am* a moderator. I didn't notice that policy change.

I *have* noticed your continued open hostility to everything about this site and wonder why you still come here if you hate it so. But it's a free country. Wail away, dude. Complain to someone who gives a shit. I'm sure you'll find someone, somewhere." deej

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

I know it's been the policy that escorts have the final say in the review section but when did it become the policy that a thread is locked down when the escort makes a response here? I thought this was an "open" forum and not one that was driven by HooBoy being bored or annoyed by a thread. As long as a thread isn't crossing a line, it should be left alone. It will eventually burn itself out and if someone doesn't like it, here's a suggestion: DON'T READ IT.

 

It's interesting that almost all decry censorship yet that is exactly what's being practiced here.

 

Libertarianly yours,

 

FFF

[+ deej]

> if someone

>doesn't like it, here's a suggestion: DON'T READ IT.

 

Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the way the site is run, DON'T VISIT IT.

 

Or, better yet, if you want to participate in long circular arguments that prove nothing and just repeat the same tired messages over and over why not consider paying for the bandwidth yourself rather than using Hoo's at no charge and then complaining when he stops the waste.

[Rick Munroe]

There's been no policy change. Threads have been "locked down" before, when they were played out & just dragging on needlessly, and as deej said, wasting bandwidth. FFF never took issue with those other threads being locked.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>There's been no policy change. Threads have been "locked

>down" before, when they were played out & just dragging on

>needlessly, and as deej said, wasting bandwidth. FFF never

>took issue with those other threads being locked.

 

So what am I missing - what thread has been locked down now?

Gosh - I hope it isn't that one about the hooker who was scared for his life - it was sooooooooo enthralling - NOT

 

Thunderbuns

[Rick Munroe]

>it was sooooooooo enthralling - NOT

 

:7 :7 :7

[Guest msagget]

". Threads have been "locked down" before, when they were played out & just dragging on needlessly, and as deej said, wasting bandwidth"

 

Gee, I wonder if that could include endless chit chat on threads that serve no purpose whatsoever other than to highlight certain individuals witty comments? Could that be an example of wasting bandwith?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>There's been no policy change. Threads have been "locked

>down" before, when they were played out & just dragging on

>needlessly, and as deej said, wasting bandwidth. FFF never

>took issue with those other threads being locked.

 

Please pay attention, it's not that difficult.

 

The Trent thread was locked downed because TRENT REPLIED and supposedly escorts now have the last word on the MESSAGE BOARD and once they have their say, the thread is locked down. I had never heard this before. Is THIS a new policy?

 

Would you like to address the question I asked and not one I didn't ask?

 

Frustratedly yours,

 

FFF

[BgMstr4u]

I often enjoy FFF's contributions, but repetition does not always carry a point, nor does flogging details.

 

From my point of view the value in many of FFF's posts is in noticing inconsistencies, contradictions and unlikely combinations and alerting the board to hype and tripe. FFF has an eagle eye for this which I value. It is useful and often fun. My advice is to do the deed once, let others respond, and then move on to the next esposé. God knows, in the world of men taking money from other men for the gratification of physical and emotional need, there is going to be lots of hype and tripe to find!

[BuckyXTC]

>There's been no policy change. Threads have been "locked

>down" before, when they were played out & just dragging on

>needlessly, and as deej said, wasting bandwidth. FFF never

>took issue with those other threads being locked.

 

 

Rick, I couldn't agree with you more, especially on the "FFF never took issue with those other threads being locked."

 

If one peruses the list of topics on the current front page of "The Deli" you will most likely see three different "FFF" threads. As far as I've notices, FFF is the only person here who consistently needs to include his name in the topic line. It appears to me that he likes "seeing his name in lights". And he accuses Trent of being a "drama queen"? Guess I should be happy that he begins all his posts that way....makes them much easier to ignore.

[Rick Munroe]

>Gee, I wonder if that could include endless chit chat on

>threads that serve no purpose whatsoever other than to

>highlight certain individuals witty comments? Could that be

>an example of wasting bandwith?

 

No. Here's the general rule of thumb: Making people smile is never a waste. Whining & kvetching & bitching always are. Hope that helps!

[Boston Guy]

Ummmm, at the risk of appearing hypocritical, I think FFF has a point. HB's note closing the other thread does not jive with the rules as I have understood them.

 

I'm not questioning HB's right to do whatever he wants to do here. It's his site. We've had this discussion before. It's his site and he can set the rules and do whatever he wants. Then each person can decide if they want to participate or not. It's sort of self-governing, because if HB's rules become too arbitrary or annoying, nobody will come to his party. But if there are no rules, the site can become so annoying that nobody will come to his party. So it's a judgment call and, sometimes, a fine line.

 

Having said that, I've understood HB's rules to be that the escort gets the last say in the reviews. I have never, ever heard that rule applied to the Message Center and would strongly object to such a rule were it to be applied.

 

I don't think this particular principle has anything much to do with the original thread FFF started, or which side of the debate we were all on. Instead, there are some general principles at work that I, at least, depend on when I come here. If I didn't have the confidence that those rules were reasonably in place, I wouldn't come here. In fact, it was a similar situation that caused me to stop posting for most of six months and for others to leave completely. (Oh, yes, I've heard the tired arguments that 'they're still lurking'; I don't care -- they're not posting and so they might as well be gone.)

 

Some of the guys who left were great participants and M4M is the poorer for their absence. It's my opinion that many of them would have stayed here -- a place they were clearly passionate about -- had the rules been enforced differently.

 

Message Center rules provide a stable playing ground, one that's supposed to be fair and predictable and clear and easily understood. We might not like what people are saying, but we defend passionately their right to say it. As the rules become arbitrary or begin to smack of censorship, people will start to feel that they are unfair. And, for each of us, there is a breaking point, a point at which we throw up our hands and say "screw that site!" and just walk away, never to be seen again.

 

Many of us are Americans and we cherish our rights to freedom of speech. I understand the technical limitations of that phrase, but I suggest that, as Americans, we tend to think of it as allowing great freedom of speech in all venues and locations and we, quite rightly, value that freedom above almost all others.

 

If a bulletin board on a Web site is a private country with its own rules about content and posting, then I think we're happiest when those rules are comprised of the most-minimal set possible and are enforced uniformly, fairly and without surprises.

 

In this case, HB locked a thread. It's his right to do so. I suppose I could think of justifications to lock that thread but, honestly, none come to mind right now. I don't think the thread, as it had evolved, was so much about TF any more. Instead, it was focusing on FFF's comments, escort security, etc.

 

I didn't like FFF's remarks -- that was probably clear to everyone. But I valued his responses and those of others, because each new set of responses forced me to sort of rethink the issue. And that's really the point of this place: sharing thoughts.

 

I was glad TF decided to post, although I suppose I would have been somewhat happier to see a slightly more apologetic approach, or at least one that admitted that there were a couple of ways of looking at the situation. Nevertheless, I was pleased he posted and was looking forward to what other people might say.

 

I would be very disappointed if there is a new policy in place that means that whenever a thread is about an escort, the thread will be locked after the escort has replied. This would greatly diminish the value of the Message Center. On the other hand, if there is no such policy, then I don't understand HB's note -- or the reasoning behind locking the thread.

 

Finally, I think that references here to 'bandwidth' are spurious. At least some of the issues being debated in that thread were real and were highly germane to the very raison d'etre of this site. Far longer threads have gone on and on about subjects that paled in comparison.

 

If HB or others are trying to say that threads should be capped at some arbitrary length because it costs too much to build the pages to support that text content [!!!], then I would suggest that the owner of this site consider the impact he is having on the owners of other sites by allowing free linking to expensive content on their sites by people using this one. The cost of putting out a text page supported by a message center should not be a reason for locking threads, in my opinion. However, much as I enjoy the pictures that are posted here -- and I do -- there is a very real cost to that, a cost that is being borne by the operators of other sites.

 

As I said above, I think FFF has raised a valid point. Fair is fair, in rules, content, administration and bandwidth.

 

BG

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>As far as I've notices, FFF is the only person

>here who consistently needs to include his name in the topic

>line. It appears to me that he likes "seeing his name in

>lights".

 

It's called "branding".

 

You're welcome, in fact ENCOURAGED, not to "buy".

 

Gleefully yours,

 

FFF

[Bastian]

>In this case, HB locked a thread. It's his right to do so.

>I suppose I could think of justifications to lock that

>thread but, honestly, none come to mind right now.

 

The fact that it wasn't a client's further rebuttal, focused mainly on semantics and second hand information seem to be central to the demise of the thread. The review and rebuttal system, I believe, has been around longer than this site. Each person has their say, and the ring of truth determines the winner. Message Boards are not based on this system, but are for the free exchanges of ideas. In this case, a person's professional name was brought up repeatedly and publicly in a negative fashion by an outsider, potentially specifically impacting his livelihood. I can't believe that this site was started with that in mind. A joke is a joke, humor is subjective, everything is for the best in this...whatever, when it's over it's over. I can't think of a single knock-knock joke that makes me laugh again. The perfectly viable issues that were brought up however (security, emotional triggers, communication, etc.) should and still can be posted by anyone . I'd think it'd be perfect for a lurker, you'd know you'd have a built in audience.

 

>

>I would be very disappointed if there is a new policy in

>place that means that whenever a thread is about an escort,

>the thread will be locked after the escort has replied.

>This would greatly diminish the value of the Message Center.

> On the other hand, if there is no such policy, then I don't

>understand HB's note -- or the reasoning behind locking the

>thread.

 

My interpretation is only a guess, of course, but I thought I'd share a point of view that others like you may not have seen.

 

 

>Finally, I think that references here to 'bandwidth'

 

Twas only an empty barb thrown by someone whistling in the dark over Rick Munroe. You really should be able to recognize them by now. :+

 

Bastian

[Guest Kalifornia]

As I said in my post that did not appear how can you expect this forum to be "open" in exchange of information when it's moderated? There is nothing "open" about this forum.

 

Also, I said it is HB site and he has the right to do what he wants with it and that includes locking threads.

 

Mark -Kalifornia

 

"I *am* a moderator. I didn't notice that policy change.

I *have* noticed your continued open hostility to everything about this site and wonder why you still come here if you hate it so. But it's a free country. Wail away, dude. Complain to someone who gives a shit. I'm sure you'll find someone, somewhere." deej

[Huey]

Possibly in a rush HooBoy did not mean to state the thread was being locked due to the escort having the last word, maybe he was simply commenting that the escort has the last word regarding reviews. And that the thread was being locked due to the direction ( or lack of) it was taking.

-----------

WAR IS OVER

if you want it

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE

[Guest Ant415]

I thought this was the Nancy Reagen Chat room?

[guyinsf]

I hadn't read the thread regarding Trent until now. Truth be told it could have been locked a lot sooner, as far as I am concerned, simply because it was obviously already more than played out.

 

I do believe that consistent rules are important, and that Hoo's response that the escort has the last word in the message center indicates a change of policy. I hope that this isn't the new policy and that it instead reflects a lack of attention to detail when locking the thread. I don't see why an escort should necessarily have the last say in a non-review situation.

 

That being said, nothing productive was happening in the other thread. Even the "expert analysis" that some people indicated was going on conveniently ignored information that didn't fit into the analysis, but I don't want to try to resurrect the same debate over here.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Fin Fang Foom Policy Change

 

Isn't Fing Foom Nancy Reagan?

[+ Lucky]

RE: HooBoy's Policy Change

 

Hooboy also locked down the Matthew Rush thread (4052), rightfully so, in my opinion.