Suggestions and ways this website can be improved

There is nothing in the rules that says i cant click on your or anybody elses profile.  Not sure what to tell you there. 

 So you don't mind explaining why you and several of your friends do it on a regular basis?

This might be off topic a little but I am new. When I read things like this negativity and drama it makes me wonder if this is a safe place. I think that disagreements should be handled privately. If you need it moderated call in a third party to mediate it. It makes the site look bad when you act like this. 

I can't explain for anyone else, and I'm not sure who you think my friends are. But personally, I often click on somebody's name after they have posted something to remind myself who it is. For you, I sometimes click just to see if you have unblocked me. And then I laugh after seeing that I sm for some reason, still blocked. It seems like a feature one might use in an app designed for middle schoolers. 

As for other posters who may be clicking on your profile, I have no idea. But just from what I have read today, it wouldn't surprise me if some might do it just to get a rise out of you. Kind of like poking a bear with a stick. 

The real question is, why does that upset you?  

Mark

"When I read things like this negativity and drama it makes me wonder if this is a safe place. "

Sorry to hear you're hesitant about browsing the forums.

That is actually one of reasons for the mod notice. Private disputes between members should remain private.

I_am_Polylover

It is sometimes hard to keep disputes private when one side of the dispute is continually baiting.

" taking the bait". , or " answering the bait " could become a forum rule .   Kind of like road rage .  No ?

Why would we punish people who are being taunted as opposed to punishing those doing the taunting? That seems like an easy way to encourage manipulative language and jabbing to become normalized.

I have chosen to leave the site because of so much nonsense and ignorance around the basic ideas of consent, refusal to listen to valid concerns and safety issues professional cuddlers encounter, and on the other site I have perfect interactions with respectful clients.

Peace. 

Manticorp :  punishing all is one way the forum owner can solve his underlying problem , i.e. The eruption of irrational , non diplomatic arguments scaring away observers wanting to jump into discussions .  Now , my above post suggested making a response to bait , a "rule", so appropriate punnishments can be figured out later .  If you want , let the " baiter " , be carted off to the town square to be hung , drawn , and quartered , and let the fish who took the bait ,get a slap on the wrist .

Morpheus

There was a point in time where the message boards were horrible. Things have calmed down dramatically since the introduction of the rules. The boards over the course of the last couple of months have actually been rather peaceful.

 Well that's a pretty sad statement that things have gotten "dramatically better" and it's plenty enough to make a person not want to spend their time in this space.

For visitors: I still like the OKC way where you can browse profiles invisibly but then you can't see who has viewed you.  Flip a switch and people can see when you've visited and you can see who has visited you again.

Account Deactivation vs Deletion: Common function among dating sites (yez i know thiz izn't a dating zite) is the ability to deactivate your profile if you need a break.  Maybe even a way to leave a personalized letter.  Might cut down on some of the people who haven't logged in in over 9 months - 1 year. On that note should there be a time frame where accounts are deleted if they haven't been accessed in over 6 months? 9 months? 1 year?

Dubbs and Ban: From another site I frequent, if someone breaks a rule they get "dubbs" or double yellow cards which means they're kind of on probation.  If they do something blatant again they get banned. But dubbs kind of lets the person know they need to be careful.

Emoticons: I'm sure it's been mentioned before but the use of emoticons would be welcome. ^_^  <---See? That could be a rolling happy face.

On the flip side I'm thankful for the profile additions and upgrades.  Very helpful and useful. 

Mark

I agree that the forum has significantly calmed over the last few weeks but there is more to do. The banning of greenearth helped and the recent subsequent bans of his secret accounts further helped. Solo conceded his role in previous skirmishes to me and has since been more selective with the topics he contributes to in order to reduce the number of potential clashes. I've noticed a change in forum conduct from a couple of other members as well.

Plenty of people still don't like each other here and do not get along but generally there has been more restraint. 

Mark

@chococuddles "Account Deactivation vs Deletion"

Should also be a few days away from deployment if testing goes well.

@sparklyblue-eyes I just think it's an easy way to have rules selectively followed so the person who answered the bait is being punished moreso than the baiter. It could potentially be used as a weapon so people can jab as much as they want with the expectation that no one will want consequences for pushing back and toe at the line of what's acceptable in conversations because they don't think people will call them out on it. This scenario isn't even the case of someone taking the bait. MrSoloDolo's comment was innocent enough, from what I could read, and FireAndBlue's comment had more baiting from what I could see. Her comments included baiting not only the original commentor, but also a mod, which is ridiculously disrespectful. I just don't see this as a cause to make such a rule, when the issue is the same as it has always been.

@manticorp :  my suggestion , was actually prompted after polyps comment , not f&b response to solos  .
yes , you are correct , that a rule , prohibiting bait responders can be used as a weapon , by baitors, can happen. My theory , that a rule , for the bait responders be introduced , is:
joe insults Steve .
steve won't respond because he thinks the moderator will moderate Steve out of the forum .
joe now figures out his new weapon .
joe continues to consistently insult Steve for fun .
joe continues unchecked , pushing his weight around 
Joe  ( and other forum members who use bait tactics ), finally realize that no one is engaging them , result , there is no fun .
in time , the bait responder rule , has extinguished the baitors.
kind of what was said above about poking the bear , if the bear just sits there, the guy jabbing the bear will stop wasting his time .

Not really. What I've found with baiters and trolls is the more you let them play off of each other, the more extreme they get, until their trolling becomes a serious ideology and the community becomes so toxic that no one even wants to be a part of it. Steve isn't going to stay in a community where he's constantly picked at with no mediation or hope for it to stop. Eventually only Joe's will be left. Apologies for the misunderstanding, but the point still stands. Things don't get better in an online community by ignoring it; that sort of approach only breeds more toxic behavior. People who poke animals with sticks will often do whatever they have to do to get a reaction from their victim. Poking becomes jabbing, whatever it takes to garner a reaction. Unfortunately, I do know quite a few people who are exactly like that, it's fairly common.

well that's my theory , maybe a weak one , something the forum owner can consider .
also consider , the rules have been in existence a month , and has the baiting stopped ? Not compleatly .
And what you said about the baiters and trollers playing off each other until they poisin the forum , let's take a look at who they really are :  they came here in the first place just to get a few hugs and cuddles . My observation is a few popular forum members are just clawing their way to the top of the forum pecking order . If there even is one .
and a little poisin is good , the forum owner keeps them here , and skillfully uses them , for when a trouble maker comes around , someone , and or some or all of them home in on the trouble maker like buzzards to a road kill and consumes them down to the bones in no time .  
Its a tough job moderating an online forum I bet , over moderate and there's no life , the place is dry , and potential new members move on .
under moderate , and you have an unfriendly place , and potential new members move on 

I_am_Polylover

@Mark  I very much appreciate that Solo has conceded his part in previous skirmishes to you, and that he has been more selective in what he posts.  However, since his previous transgressions, especially his personal attack on me, were done on the public forums, I think he needs to apologize in public as well.  He sent me a PM with a very nonspecific general apology for anything and everything I might have taken offense to.  I told him that I need a more specific public apology, but have not heard anything back from him regarding that, although he did have the gall to send me a friend request without first even attempting to handle the problem.

A separate issue is that when someone deletes their account, all of their PMs disappear along with my own creative writing efforts.  Is there a way to prevent that from happening?  Besides my own creative efforts being lost due to no fault of my own, I also lose a way of contacting that person off site.
♥Jim

Mark

The PM issue you mention is on my list already and will hopefully be done soon.

@sparklyblue-eyes The intention that they came here with does not mean they can't make poor choices once they're here. There shouldn't be any "clawing to the top" because heirarchies in online communities like this get very messy very quickly. Only people that Mark appoint as moderators should have the authority to essentially drive people out, and even then it should be in accordance with the rules of the forum. I for one wouldn't want to be part of a community where people who break the rules are purposely used against members who are seen as an issue. All that says is that the mod(s) isn't in control, the baiters are. I'm not talking about people who just bait once or twice, either, I'm talking about accounts who only seem to speak up to stir everyone up and derail productive discussions.
A month isn't actually a very long time to judge a rule's effectiveness. Change in a community takes time and vigilance, it's best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when waiting for results with something like this.

Manti , may I call you Manti ?
you may not want to be part of a community, with self moderators , but you are in one now right here .  A good example is the discussion : inappropriate profile .
the forum owner actually depends upon members , weather or not they are rule breakers , or rule benders , or top of the pecking order, to bring to his attention , bad accounts , which might cause harm to the community , so he can delete the accounts.
Now , the forum owner discovered a new tool he can use , to help , or even control the
forum , to a certain degree. This does , I think , allow those certain members , to have a little pride , that they helped mold the forum , into a homogenized community , where their wisdom , and experience , gives guidance and suggestions , to those who seek.

pmvines

@sparkyblue-eyes The community is self moderating, however it does not benefit nor does admin benefit by baiters, gaslighting, bullying, and trolling. That does not add to the homogenization of the community, but rather dilutes it and makes it unpleasant for others. You are implying that it is ok to fight fire with fire, however when one baiter, troll, or bully starts in, it becomes like a pack mentality. I have seen it first hand and was immediately put off by it. I do not blame somebody who feels harassed or bullied one bit for defending themselves against it on here, however I have no respect for or empathy for a baiter.

You can call me Manti, no issues there. The difference is that in the inappropriate profile thread, the members of the community are only reporting things to the moderator, not moderating themselves. The difference is that the power still rests with the moderator in his discretion to decide whether or not the comment actually is inappropriate. And the idea that there are members at the top of the "pecking order" is very off-putting. Of course there will be well-respected members of the community, but there's a difference between having trusted members of the community and having someone at the "top of the pecking order". And the act of reporting an inappropriate profile doesn't involve baiting, jabbing, or otherwise manipulating other people. By all means, it's a great idea to have a balanced community input, but a particular group of members shouldn't ever have the most say or power. That's how these sorts of communities fall apart and become hypocrites. If we're all searching for something so positive and healing, why would our community support emotional manipulation like that (and yes, that is what it is. I may sound a tad dramatic, but at the end of the day it's just plain wrong to give people a free pass to jab at someone in a public forum like this)

I_am_Polylover

I sure wish we were able to 'like' forum posts!  Thank you @pmvines, that was very well said.
♥Jim

Vines the example I gave contains no baiting , just honest searches by forum members , bringing out into the open , ban worthy accounts .  
I was implying that the admin . utilize , their diligence , in the same fashion , ( which was/is devoid of baiting etc.) help moderate the forum .

pmvines

@sparkyblue-eyes you said that the baiters and people who tend to gain up on others on here are sometimes a necessity and that they are useful to admin, and that this is somehow part of the fabric of this site and they take pride in building it to a homogenized type of construct. You said that several posts back. If I am misinterpreting that then please clarity.

Read both plagiarizing discussions

Read both plagiarizing discussions