-
Sometimes….(what???)
Quantity over quality is indeed a current hot topic, we want information but we don’t want to sieve through piles of writing to find something ‘worthwhile’.
The quality of a post is indeed in the eye of the beholder as we all get different things from each point of text/information.
To try and control this flow off information is to a degree to try and control what you know/think and convey to other people.
Keeping a balance in your life is a good thing, too much off one thing can get boring/stale very quickly.
A god complex is a colloquial term used to portray a perceived character flaw as if it were a ‘psychological complex’. The person who is said to have a ‘god complex’ does not believe he is God, but is said to act so arrogantly that he might as well believe he is a god or appointed to act by a god. Some people also call it a Messianic complex.Some believe that ‘god complexes’ are “particularly common in arrogant, highly educated, worldly, or powerful people.”
The French Revolution may well, in the opinion of some, illustrate the destructiveness of arrogant reforms attributable to god complexes. The purported God-like intention of intellectuals to reinvent the world, and in particular the retroactively claimed god complex of Napoleon Bonaparte, may have been in some opinions the catalyst for the twenty years of war that ensued.
A particular use of the God complex is to be found in basic attempts to criticize modern societies. Some groups of people, especially those bound by their own culture to live in a God-based mental universe, usually advance the theory that a collective god complex, rooted in what they call the utopianism of the French Enlightenment lies at the basis of Western modern civilization and is considered by some to have led to the reign of terror that afflicted all of Europe beginning in the late 18th century.
-
17 Replies
-
OK – I rise to the bait.
I agree that control over what information is valuable is a difficullt area.
It depends on the circumstances of who is imparting and who seeking information.But I hold that postings with 4 words (yes we have them!) are just wasting bandwidth and generally reflect the posters over-inflated opinion of themselves rather than any intent to impart real information to others.
Then what does it say when you start a new topic with the title – “Sometimes…” – like this thread?
To me it means that you don’t want to help readers find out if the topic is of interest but instead want them to have to open up the forum and read it.So in addition to requiring at least enough words in a post to convey some information to others perhaps I should remind members that topic names are valuable to readers and shouldn’t be abused.
If you can’t identify what your posting is about why should others have to find out the hard way?
Perhaps “Somethimes” should have been “Sometimes we as individuals have to accept some constraints for the greater good of the comunity” but that I know wouldn’t have fitted!
-
I think the title of a thread isn’t always important, If I had have called this thread…
‘A Thread Discussing Thread Importance’,
I dont think it would’ve knocked up that many more thread openings than it being called ‘Sometimes….’.
Or maybe I prefer a more mass-marketing approach, luring people in through intrigue, maybe. I know its not as mainstream as it should be.Plus.. this forum doesn’t exactly move at lightning fast speeds to the point where people have to be choosey with what threads they read.
-
I don’t find being accused by a perfect stranger of having a “god complex” particularly nice, nor do I like my attempts to try and maintain the integrity of the web site labelled as “preposterous”.
It seems a bit sureal to devote a lot of time and money to running the site just to provide a forum for people to slag me off. But that’s what I do – so fire away Monique!Monique wrote to me…
Is this not taking the god complex too far?
I thought that ‘we’ were more capable of understanding and caring for ‘everyone’ more so for each other.
I can not see for any reason why someone can’t post a small sentence even if its to say they agree with the thread, its normal.
And to tell people virtually to be more interesting/consistant with their posting is ridiculous.
I believe this new idea is preposterous, if there is valid reason for this move then Im all ears.If… you want class on your website then you’re clutching at straws as you can’t ‘choose’ or decide how people want to be or be perceived.
You may aswell just put a IQ test on new user sign-ups.
The reputation concept is borderline as it is, as its not a popularity contest.
In the meantime I’ll be avoiding posting here. No great loss Im sure.I can help you avoid posting by putting a ban on you – but I won’t cos that would be too “god like” behaviour?
-
I believe I can add something to this debate. I run a very small (approx 80 member) website for local girls in South Australia. I also have been accused of being ‘god-like’ and a ‘control freak’ by membership applicants, and occassionally members themselves, as I:
(1) Refuse to accept any member who doesn’t have a completed msn/yahoo profile OR their profile is obviously male OR their application is unsolicited
(2) Remove ‘flame’ messages posted on the siteI really don’t mind who posts what on the site provided they don’t attack another individual. They are my rules and I ensure everyone who joins understands that fully when I process their application. Thus far I have only had cause to remove one person for an unprovoked attack on someone else.
The point being, if it is a site I have set up then it is at my discretion and is my responsibility what happens on that site. If I chose to discourage or disallow one-line message responses/rudey pics/or people who were born on a tuesday then that is my call. The same applies to Amanda and anyone else who administers something like this. Monique,comparing a site webmistress to Napoleon in the manner in which you applied it above is intellectual bullying in the extreme and totally inappropriate.We all read posts which we may consider to be frivolous. Big deal, get over it.
-
i can only agree with you emma. the line has to be drawn on what is and isn’t acceptable in theses forums. personally , i would not like to be a person running a website as this. way too much moral responsibilty for me. amanda and emma i think do a good job in running thier websites.
monica has every right to make her opinion heard as has emma and amanda has every right to respond as they have. emma , your last words carried the best message…..get over it….. -
Hi Girls
Spare a thought for Amanda!! She does a fantasic job and believe me !! it’s not a piece of cake running a forum. I administer the Western Australian forums http://www.chameleonswa.com and have to go thru over 400 postings a month which takes dedication, time and effort!!Postings should be informative and useful to the reader and if your thing is 4 word posts of little or no value then that’s what chat rooms are for.
Amanda has the right (as Administrator) to delete posts that have no value and also ban users that don’t conform. That’s not being “god-like” at all, that’s simply making sure that readers have useful material without having to wade thru meaningless posts.
Keep up the superb work, Amanda. We are with you all the way
Christie
-
Can I say 2 things.
1 I’m with you Christie, particularly when you say “Keep up the superb work, Amanda. We are with you all the way”
2 Emma, we SA girls know that you really are “god like” in the nicest possible way we love what you do.
Having managed other website I know that both of these girls do an enormous amount of work maintaining their sites. They have the right to make the rules – If you don’t like them either, live with it of go set up your own site.
Keep up the valuable work Amanda and Emma.
Annie
-
I do run two websites of my own, I just dont believe webmasters should censor peoples thoughts/opinions so harshly.
Are small posts on this forum so bad that they have to be censored? How many people actually complained about small posts?
And how many people here would post more if they knew there wasn’t so many rules and conditions to them expressing themselves.It comes across so contradictory especially when you consider who this forum is for. First society censors us then someone who is on our side wants to censor us.. I think the webmaster should just except us for who we are with no conditions.
And for the record the writing under
was an explanation of ‘god complex’, it wasn’t a direct accusation. Maybe I should of just used the word ‘snob’ instead. -
Quote:It comes across so contradictory especially when you consider who this forum is for. First society censors us then someone who is on our side wants to censor us.. I think the webmaster should just except us for who we are with no conditions.
Well society doesn’t censor just us. Society censors everyone as we are all expected to behave appropriately – the moderators being our peers . Trannys are however one of the biggest (individually)self censoring ‘groups’ around: “I can’t/won’t/I’m afraid/can’t do that/someone will find out/I’m too male/too hairy/my wife wont understand/my mechanic will disown me” etc
There are plenty of sites on the ‘net where you can post whatever you like with absolutely no editing or moderating fears…and the universal thing about all sites like that is they are without exception tacky, sleazy, and troll-infested. I’d much rather spend my time reading a post that said “oh I agree, good post” than miles of text from a smelly troll getting his jollies chatting up trannys.
Snob? Monique you are the only one to display any evidence of snobbery in this discussion.
-
Quote:I just dont believe webmasters should censor peoples thoughts/opinions so harshly.
I’m yet to see any genuine censorship of substantive content.
Quote:Are small posts on this forum so bad that they have to be censored?Is it reasonable for a person to flood the forums with meaningless posts that say completely and utterly nothing?
Quote:How many people actually complained about small posts?Actively or passively? I often read a post and think “why on earth did they bother posting that?” Just because someone doesn’t come back and flame the poster, leave negative feedback or complain to the site administrator doesn’t mean that they were happy about reading something trivial, trite or just plain useless!
Quote:And how many people here would post more if they knew there wasn’t so many rules and conditions to them expressing themselves.I post when I feel that I have a valid contribution to make, either in starting a new thread or responding to an existing thread. The posting rules here are so close to normal acceptable use policy for virtually everywhere else I ever post or read that I have never considered them when typing a post.
Quote:It comes across so contradictory especially when you consider who this forum is for. First society censors us then someone who is on our side wants to censor us..Can you show me actual censorship anywere within the tranny radio web site that extends beyond what the majority of users would understand to be fair and reasonable behaviour?
Quote:I think the webmaster should just except us for who we are with no conditions.History is full of societies that have collapsed because they devolved to debauchery and the like. That is what you want of this site?
As long as members are able to function with reasonable self-guidance with respect to socially acceptable and moral behaviour within the transgender community, there is no need for the webmistress to impose guidance in this regard.
Quote:And for the record the writing under
was an explanation of ‘god complex’, it wasn’t a direct accusation. Maybe I should of just used the word ‘snob’ instead.That comment is a flame. Do you think that Amanda will censor it out? Considering how that reads in the context of the rest of your comments in this thread, I doubt that she will censor your insulting her. Worse, she will likely leave it for all to see.
Alice.
-
Its nice to see so many posts that highlight the negative sides of my point.
I counted seven in that last one. To objectively acknowledge someones point of view is to see both sides and you all seem so hellbent on proving me wrong.
No one seems to grasp the point that Im trying to make. Unless its so absurd its not worth acknowledging.Quote:I’m yet to see any genuine censorship of substantive content.This is still a new rule.
Quote:Is it reasonable for a person to flood the forums with meaningless posts that say completely and utterly nothing?Has that even happened here? Since when has it been a problem?
Quote:Actively or passively? I often read a post and think “why on earth did they bother posting that?” Just because someone doesn’t come back and flame the poster, leave negative feedback or complain to the site administrator doesn’t mean that they were happy about reading something trivial, trite or just plain useless!Actively, I haven’t seen any. Passively, If its not bad enough to mention is it really all that bad? One boring post a month?
Quote:I post when I feel that I have a valid contribution to make, either in starting a new thread or responding to an existing thread. The posting rules here are so close to normal acceptable use policy for virtually everywhere else I ever post or read that I have never considered them when typing a post.Exactly, so whats the need for a rule change here? I for one always make sure I post comments that would be within the guidelines, just like everyone else I’ve seen here.
I admit I have come across abit angry on this subject but only because I feel so strongly about it.Quote:Can you show me actual censorship anywere within the tranny radio web site that extends beyond what the majority of users would understand to be fair and reasonable behaviour?Like I said the rule is still new.
Its the principle of this change not how harsh each censorship will be.Quote:History is full of societies that have collapsed because they devolved to debauchery and the like. That is what you want of this site?As long as members are able to function with reasonable self-guidance with respect to socially acceptable and moral behaviour within the transgender community, there is no need for the webmistress to impose guidance in this regard.
Of course not. Its about free-will to post whats in our hearts and to trust each other.
Your following sentence is spot on what I think.
Im sure we all understand what is and whats not considered appropriate behaviour.Quote:That comment is a flame. Do you think that Amanda will censor it out? Considering how that reads in the context of the rest of your comments in this thread, I doubt that she will censor your insulting her. Worse, she will likely leave it for all to see. SmileTake it as you will, in or out of context, its not really the point.. its just a cheap excuse to attack me.
I feel that Amanda has done a great job with this website and I think its fine as it is. But at the end of the day its her choice right. -
Quote:No one seems to grasp the point that Im trying to make. Unless its so absurd its not worth acknowledging.
As I understand it, you are objecting to the fact that a minimum number of characters has been defined below which a post will not be considered acceptable because it is too short.
I’m genuinely interested in trying to understand why you have become so incredibly worked up over a very minor administrative change.
The reality is that the moderators would previously have manually deleted such posts anyway. Such manual deletion has been happening for several years. The net effect is that a portion of the trivial posts that previously had to be manually deleted are now not posted in the first place.
Please explain why you object to this. What negative effect does it have?
The forums have previously been flooded with rubbish posts, and we still frequently get “me too” posts even from regular posters, perhaps just trying to boost their posting stats.
I really don’t feel the need to attack someone for a “me too” type post. I try to always be positive in these forums and elsewhere. Just because I don’t complain doesn’t mean that I liked the post.
Quote:Im sure we all understand what is and whats not considered appropriate behaviour.If we did, the need for the site administrators to delete or edit inappropriate posts, profiles and photos would not exist. The fact that the need exists is testament to the fact that some here either do not understand or choose to knowingly break the rules in regards to what is or isn’t appropriate.
Quote:I feel that Amanda has done a great job with this website and I think its fine as it is. But at the end of the day its her choice right.Amanda does do an immense amount of work in making this site as good as it is. It’s certainly not a job that I envy! Amanda and I may have our differences, particularly in regards to the whole idea of negative feedback, but I believe that every decision that she has made in respect of this site has been made after careful consideration and has been what she believed to be in the best interest of the members.
Alice
-
Its like a sliding scale, the more someone is against something the more someone else will try and prove them wrong and argue the opposite end of the scale.
Where if everyone is calm and in the middle then more progress will come about. This thread is a perfect example of that.No one here has even remotely come close to understanding the point I tried to make. And I do believe I have made my point pretty clear on several occasions.
Maybe I should of kept it simple and stupid so everyone could understand… oh wait there is a limit so it would get deleted… š® oh well. -
Quote:Its like a sliding scale, the more someone is against something the more someone else will try and prove them wrong and argue the opposite end of the scale.
Where if everyone is calm and in the middle then more progress will come about. This thread is a perfect example of that.There is of course the the distinct possibility, which you have neglected to note Monique, that you are completely incorrect which may be why the point is being argued. Maintaining the ‘middle’ ground achieves little.
Quote:No one here has even remotely come close to understanding the point I tried to make. And I do believe I have made my point pretty clear on several occasions.
Maybe I should of kept it simple and stupid so everyone could understand… oh wait there is a limit so it would get deleted… š® oh well.What a staggeringly rude remark. The inference is that unless you dumbed down your posts few would understand your point? The spurious points you have made have little to do with ‘short posts’ but everything to do with unprovoked attacks on the administrators. I’m not overly thrilled when I go to many service stations these days and have to pay before I fill up – but it is their party so it is their rules. If I don’t like it I can go elsewhere ….I solution I think you should give immediate consideration to Monique.
-
Hi All I don”t have many posts, but I do read the content with much interest, it does help me a lot with my personal issues. I beleive Amanda is doing a great job with this site and Iam sure she is capable of making her own judgement in keeping the qualitiy of her site as she wishes
On another issue I would love to be able to have a one on one chat with someone who has similar fem feelings as I haveKeep up the good work
Silky š³
