DetoxDave

While i’m here i’d like to say I find the use of the phrase ‘real women’ or ‘real woman’ troubling. A person is either a woman or not so the word ‘real’ suggests something else is meant. In this case I suggest that it may be read as meaning that you think other women aren’t ‘real’. You reinforce this by using ‘real’ when referring to yourself, Mar, but just women when referring to others. I realise that there are differing views as to what is meant by the term ‘woman’ so some discussion might ensue about that. I also recognise you will say that you are trying to emphasise that you are a woman in real life. The thing I am concerned about is that you don’t confer the same emphasis towards other women.

I think I know considerably more about fascism than you know about feminism, young man, I object to the idea that it is acceptable to be violent towards women, to spank them if you like, without their consent. I suggest you stop obfuscating. The issue is one of consent. I do not seek to prevent anybody from expressing an opinion, a man who assumes it is his right to spank a woman without her consent and acts upon it is likely to find himself charged with sexual assault. There is a very good reason for this.

In RobT's profile he has previously said he's from Flint, Michigan. Public knowledge, therefore no rules have been broken. I agree it is illegal, certainly in the UK under the computer misuse acts, to search for IP addresses without a good reason. I have not searched for IP addresses, all I said is that it is possible. Also common knowledge. In short you are trying to threaten me, and that is against Terms of Service. I want to pick up on a different point, however. I have endeavoured to promote a discussion, in fact I have encouraged you, Mar_Mohan, to express your opinions no matter how abhorent I find them. In THX's thread I have said that I believe better discussion could arise from a panel rather than a single individual. I have presented my reasoning in the hope that discussion has ensued. I am pleased to see that it has, albeit a more general view of feminism than the merits of THX's event. I have never attempted to shut down any discussion. I have challenged what I believe to be Mar_Mohan's opinion about spanking women very strongly because I find such sentiments completely unnacceptable. That is within the Terms and Conditions and is in line with normal considerations of free sheech. Does this sound like the behaviour of someone accused of being a fascist?

I didn't know he had served in the military. I do recall him saying that he had a serious aversion to firearms on one occassion, so you have that in common with him as well. You do seem to know quite a lot about him. Are you another of his friends?

The Great Lakes, the state of Michigan is adjacent, as is Toronto. I do have an additional interest because the incident has several explanations, the song suggests that the Edmund Fitzgerald had been overladen or that there was some confusion over the Plimsoll Mark. I think Gordon Lightfoot changed the lyrics when it was discovered that this wasn't the case. There remain several explanations for the tragedy, however. I am glad that you can say in public that you have no intention of firing a weapon, and that you never have done. That is something we have in common. I do not think I had suggested you might have, possibley you take the phrase 'shooting yourself in the foot' too literally. Just in case you hadn't worked it out. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/shoot-yourself-in-the-foot

I didn't actually say he is, I said I believe him to be. There's a is quite a difference. If I had said he was it would be stated as a fact and therefore contrary to Terms of Serivce. Saying I believe him to be is my opinion and expressed as an opinion. I think under the Terms of Service we are allowed opinions. What we are not allowed to do is to make false statements as if they are fact. I'm making an addition here. I think I have been quite clear in all my posts that any opinions I have expressed are just that and not statements of fact. The distinction allows me to challenge opinions that I believe are unnacceptable without directly attacking the individual. This is of fundamental importance in any sort of discussion.

Point as near proven as is possible in this environment. You have shot yourself in the foot with this one, young man. Other evidence available is who 'likes' your posts. It is also interesding to note that when you complain about other people being the owners of banned accounts it is acceptable whereas when it is suggested you might be, then suddenly it become contrary to Terms and Conditions. You may be interested to know that Toronto is a fascinating city, I have some old photographic slides that my Father took when he visited on business. His diary entries from the time make the images come to life. I agree that there isn't anything more to say on this topic. I think I might repost two posts from before - the fighting fascists one and the magic bus one. I've not done so yet because I feel they might lose their impact if I do and that I might not write them as well. The context to any forum activity will be different as well. You may also be interested to note that saying somebody is a fascist as if it were a fact, as opposed to thinking they might be, is contrary to the Terms and Conditions. On two counts I believe. I believe this is why my last diary attempt was removed. I thought this would be appropriate to post here as well.

This is something that's been teasing away at me for a few days now. I gather that there are utilities available that reveal the general location of an IP address without neccesarily revealing the IP itself, or any other data. Given that one of our 'friends' techniques to cause trouble on the forums is to try to call in to question people's identity may I suggest that he tries using one of these utilities. He'll quickly find that my location is reported as Canterbury, which is wrong. I actually live nearer the coast than that. Based on what she has said Bridget's would be revealed as somewhere in South West England and SImon_M's would probably be revealed as somewhere near Flint, Michigan. The times he goes round liking posts very much suggests that he is in that time zone.

I do believe that young Master Robert has come back to join us again. If you find what I say too deep you don't have to read it, or comment on it. Your post shows exactly where you stand on quite a minor, but useful in my opinion, issue.

I agree the 3dxChat owners do not have to do anything if they don’t want to. The change to the Terms of Service that I suggest would help make moderator decisions more transparent to users. The only people who would object to that are those who have a vested interest in keeping such decisions obscure.

I thought I made it quite clear that the moderators have the authority to make whatever decisions they see fit in accordance with the terms and conditions. Make whatever you will of that.

I was under the impression that i’d already said that.

A simple statement saying that the policy is to remove whole threads following a successful report would suffice.

I was a little surprised that my diary was removed altogther as a result of one post which broke the Terms of Service. Of course the moderators retain the right to delete whatever they like for whatever reason. It appears to me that there is a policy in use whereby whole threads are removed following a successful report. I made the report about the offensive post, so the removal of my thread has a delightful irony. If this is the case I would suggest that a clause is inserted into the terms and conditions to this effect. The issue I actualy want to talk about is one that has appeared several times on the forums, namely that of men playing as women. Discussion so far appears to be of the form of two extremes: It is wrong and it doesn't matter, I believe the issue is much more nuanced that that. I must first lay my cards on the table. In general I have no objection to men playing as women, or any other gender. I think it unlikely that I would become involved in a sexual relationship with someone other than a woman. This is not because I have a problem with it, it's just that I have been a boring heterosexual all my life. I am unlikely to change at my age. Individuals of whatever gender are at liberty to play as whatever gender they like, for whatever reason of which there are many. For example a man may want to try to experience that of a woman or a woman that of a man, an individual may be exploring the possibilities of life as a TG, they may be exploring their own sexuality and so on. I think this is to be encouraged. The thing that does concern me is the possibility that a man might play as a woman so as to mislead people. I don't think this is a problem with casual sex but as soon as an ongoing sexual relationship develops a high degree of honesty is required for it to be truly successful. Sex is about communication and sharing, amongst other things, certainly over the long term. I doubt I'm even getting anywhere near even scratching the surface of this issue in a short diary post. I like to believe that honesty is always the best policy in this. A man playing as a woman may tell a potential partner who has the choice of going ahead or not. A simple 'thanks but no thanks' is sufficient. There is no reason to be rude or offensive about it. The key point I want to make is that this is a complex issue and that tact, consideration and honesty can go a long way to resolving any difficulties.

I don’t know about you, but wouldn’t you say relationships occur because people accept each other for who they are. Appearance is only part of it. I think wormy cum could be a bit off putting, and that is what people are posting about.

You might not care, my friend, it would appear that some people do, to the extent they believe it worth posting about. It seems to me that one of the things people are asking for is greater realism. While the issue of cum shots doesn’t greatly concern me I agree that greater realism is worth striving for. Don’t we all want the game to improve in ways that make our own game play better?

Bullying, Balamut, is not fun for anybody. People play the game for fun, not to be bullied or abused. Insisting it’s just a game does not make trolling, abuse, bullying etc. acceptable. People pay for enjoyment, not to have their enjoyment eroded by selfish people who think it is fun to be obnoxious.

Balamut doesn’t seem to accept that the ignore feature is limited. It works well against noobs who’re learning the ropes. They might be annoying but they aren’t usually trolls or bullies. They quickly learn that colding, random hugging and naked wanking doesn’t get the result they want. Ignore is useless against the determined troll who undertakes hug and kiss bullying using multiple accounts and avatars. It is useless against the spreading of lies in WC and local. It is useless against trolls who send abusive pm’s from multiple avatars and accounts. It is useless against trolls who infiltrate groups of friends using multiple avatars and accounts for the purpose of stirring things up. So to my view of reopening the test server to encourage new sign ups. I don’t think it makes much difference because it encourages people who don’t want to pay, and might encourage minors.

I think recent events show that the current situation doesn’t work very well at all. If it did abusive, bullying and insulting posts wouldn’t happen to any great extent.

I’m sorry Mei, but the point is that there are no moderators and haven’t been since Lisa last logged in in November. Since then Gizmo has been trying to do what he can. I think he recognises that is not sufficient, hence his indication that user moderation is something he will implement with the next update of the forum software.

Fair enough, it is easier if the topic is brought into the one thread. The topic has cropped up several times in this thread, namely that addressing forum and WC issues should have a higher priority than other updates on the grounds that it would help increase the user base more. It does mean that some people will have make their posts in the new thread. That has arguments for and against, but some people might decide they can’t be bothered to post again so their input could become lost.

I’d say that this topic is drifting again. The bottom line is that abuse of women, gays, trans, bullying, insults etc are against the rules, particularly the ubiquitous 2.02. Without moderators, which everybody agrees would.be the ideal solution, another approach is required. Gizmo has already indicated user moderation is the approach he’d like to implement. Anybody who agrees that the abuse of women, gays, trans, minorities, bullying, insults etc are behaviours that aren’t wanted will accept that some action is required from Gizmo. Recent events show that there are some people who refuse to moderate their behaviour. If you think that the abuse of women, gays, trans, minorities, bullying, insults are all part of normal discussion will, of course, not want anything to change. I think the vast majority of people would prefer to do without abuse, bullying, insults etc. User moderation of your own threads makes it that much more difficult. It’s the best solution we’ve got so far. If Gizmo wanted to pay moderators he’d already be doing it. The implication of his intent to introduce user moderation is that he doesn’t want to have to pay moderators. It all boils down to this: i ask people reading this post to ask themselves this question. do you think abuse, bullying etc should not happen on a public forum or do you think it should. Ask yourself which side you are on and act accordingly.

I want to start this post by saying that in an ideal world proper independant and professional moderation is the optimum. Gizmo has decided he doesn't want to have to pay for this because, I assume, it is too expensive. I gather that until now he has relied on people from the game, with all the problems associated with that. Then, more recently, he has given up on any moderation whatsoever other than that he can do himself. I'm going to post this to the other thread as well, the two seem to be running in parallel. My apologies if anybody sees this as an inconvenience. I'll quote part of the most commonly quoted rule, 2.02. This provides a good starting point for discussing any behaviour. "The idea behind this is to prevent any player from consistently being uncomfortable on the forums." If any behaviour causes anybody to feel uncomfortable on the forums then it is breaking this rule. Particularly so if it is intentional. The abuse of women, gays, trans or any minority is not aceptable under any circumstances and breaks this rule. Neither is it funny to abuse women, gays, trans or any minority. I don't think anybody can disagree with that. Both examples break this rule because it makes women, gays, trans or any minorities abused feel uncomfortable about using the forums. The behaviour we have seen recently can only be classed as abuse, in any case posts promoting violence against women, insults, lies etc all break this rule by making people feel uncomfortable about using the forums. This thread, and the related section of the other thread, is about what can be done to reduce this rule breaking in the absence of any moderation. The proposal is that thread openers should be able to moderate their own threads. This could work, this has been gone in to and has been shown to be a solution Gizmo favours, is a pratcial proposition in terms of the software and is workable in terms of the level of responsibility on the thread opener. The vast majority of thread openers will take their responsibility sensibly, in my opinion. The suggestion will not affect people who participate in discussions sensibly, their post will stay in the thread, be read, mulled over and replied to. It won't affect people who inject a little humour in to what could be rather dry topics. Who doesn't like a bit of humour, providing it doesn't break the rules or derail the thread. The only people it will affect adversly are the trolls/bullies whose posts will be deleted as soon as the thread opener logs on again. The only places remaining for trolling and bullying will be those opened by trolls for trolling, or those people who tolerate them. If things get out of hand then, judging by recent experience, Gizmo will act as effectively as he sees fit once he has been informed. All in all what's not to like, given that professional moderation is probably not going to happen. I recognise much of this is repeating points already made. I don't see any harm in this as, to my eye, the discussion has started to drift away from the fundamental issues.

I want to start this post by saying that in an ideal world proper independant and professional moderation is the optimum. Gizmo has decided he doesn't want to have to pay for this because, I assume, it is too expensive. I gather that until now he has relied on people from the game, with all the problems associated with that. Then, more recently, he has given up on any moderation whatsoever other than that he can do himself. I'm going to post this to the other thread as well, the two seem to be running in parallel. My apologies if anybody sees this as an inconvenience. I'll quote part of the most commonly quoted rule, 2.02. This provides a good starting point for discussing any behaviour. "The idea behind this is to prevent any player from consistently being uncomfortable on the forums." If any behaviour causes anybody to feel uncomfortable on the forums then it is breaking this rule. Particularly so if it is intentional. The abuse of women, gays, trans or any minority is not aceptable under any circumstances and breaks this rule. Neither is it funny to abuse women, gays, trans or any minority. I don't think anybody can disagree with that. Both examples break this rule because it makes women, gays, trans or any minorities abused feel uncomfortable about using the forums. The behaviour we have seen recently can only be classed as abuse, in any case posts promoting violence against women, insults, lies etc all break this rule by making people feel uncomfortable about using the forums. This thread, and the related section of the other thread, is about what can be done to reduce this rule breaking in the absence of any moderation. The proposal is that thread openers should be able to moderate their own threads. This could work, this has been gone in to and has been shown to be a solution Gizmo favours, is a pratcial proposition in terms of the software and is workable in terms of the level of responsibility on the thread opener. The vast majority of thread openers will take their responsibility sensibly, in my opinion. The suggestion will not affect people who participate in discussions sensibly, their post will stay in the thread, be read, mulled over and replied to. It won't affect people who inject a little humour in to what could be rather dry topics. Who doesn't like a bit of humour, providing it doesn't break the rules or derail the thread. The only people it will affect adversly are the trolls/bullies whose posts will be deleted as soon as the thread opener logs on again. The only places remaining for trolling and bullying will be those opened by trolls for trolling, or those people who tolerate them. If things get out of hand then, judging by recent experience, Gizmo will act as effectively as he sees fit once he has been informed. All in all what's not to like, given that professional moderation is probably not going to happen. I recognise much of this is repeating points already made. I don't see any harm in this as, to my eye, the discussion has started to drift away from the fundamental issues.

This isn’t a simple issue so, for that reason, I support the idea of a separate thread. I have a feeling that most of what needs to be said has already been said, so a degree of repetition is likely. Perhaps a poll might have been useful, particularly for people like me who haven’t made up their minds and can see both sides of the debate. I’ll quickly edit in my response to the preceding post. A lot has happened since 2014 and the game has become more social in its orientation. Sex may draw people in, friends, to my mind, cause them to stay. Five years on things have changed, there’s no harm in thinking again about this issue.