# Are people moderating Dimensions Homaphobic??



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

I have just had a discussion with my beloved Mergirl who is thinking of quitting Dimensions because she is so disgusted at having her posts removed. Firstly Any FA or BBW or BHM who happens to be gay, should not have their views or invitations to other non-gays restricted to the LGBTQ board. Secondly as this is a size positive site why then do other people's posts not get removed when they are just ranting about any old crap if it is nothing to do with being fat or fat positive.? I'll tell you why...because there is more to human beings than their weight OR their sexuality!!!

If Mer wanted to invite people to join a gay party online then what is the problem with that? Should the moderaters just be allowed to remove it with no explanation nor cause? 

Who moderates the moderators? Some are obviously power hungry or just ignorant not to mention discriminatory. If mer had said come join our African American culture appreciation party would anyone dare to remove that??? I think not.hypocrits!

For those of you who enjoy Mers posts and have shared time on dims with her then please support her in not allowing this injustice. message the moderators and ask them why? She is asking why and been getting no response!

Let's see how many of you actually get to read this before I get silenced too.

P.s. No offence to any moderators who do a fine job in keeping the boards fair and interesting.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 7, 2009)

Nope, the post wasn't deleted just moved to the GLBTQ board. That's the kind of thing that happens when you have a bunch of different boards within a board. 

Just like food stuff gets moved to the food board, clothes stuff gets moved to the clothing board, and so on...




GoldenDelicious said:


> I have just had a discussion with my beloved Mergirl who is thinking of quitting Dimensions because she is so disgusted at having her posts removed. Firstly Any FA or BBW or BHM who happens to be gay, should not have their views or invitations to other non-gays restricted to the LGBTQ board. Secondly as this is a size positive site why then do other people's posts not get removed when they are just ranting about any old crap if it is nothing to do with being fat or fat positive.? I'll tell you why...because there is more to human beings than their weight OR their sexuality!!!
> 
> If Mer wanted to invite people to join a gay party online then what is the problem with that? Should the moderaters just be allowed to remove it with no explanation nor cause?
> 
> ...


----------



## bexy (Jul 7, 2009)

Really all Mer was trying to do was promote the GLBTQ board as it is still fairly new and encourage people to come and join in the fun and games. Nothing political, nothing controversial, I don't get it.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Nope, the post wasn't deleted just moved to the GLBTQ board. That's the kind of thing that happens when you have a bunch of different boards within a board.
> 
> Just like food stuff gets moved to the food board, clothes stuff gets moved to the clothing board, and so on...


No actually, Mer got a PM from a moderator saying it was being removed because it was creating a dust up THEN they moved it to the GLBTQ board when she questioned it. THEN they banned her and did not explain why. she has been banned until the 22nd of July and is very disappointed in the homaphobia. If there is some other reason then someone please explain it to me!!


----------



## kayrae (Jul 7, 2009)

Her post wasn't moved to the GLBTQ board. It was deleted. Usually the mods PM the member to explain why their post was deleted. Perhaps it's still being written? *cross our fingers*



Ella Bella said:


> Nope, the post wasn't deleted just moved to the GLBTQ board. That's the kind of thing that happens when you have a bunch of different boards within a board.
> 
> Just like food stuff gets moved to the food board, clothes stuff gets moved to the clothing board, and so on...


----------



## bexy (Jul 7, 2009)

It's now in the Lounge, not sure how long it has been there.

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61228


----------



## Teleute (Jul 7, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Nope, the post wasn't deleted just moved to the GLBTQ board. That's the kind of thing that happens when you have a bunch of different boards within a board.
> 
> Just like food stuff gets moved to the food board, clothes stuff gets moved to the clothing board, and so on...



Was it? I don't see it on the GLBTQ board. The original 7&7 party thread is there, but it was there to start with. I have to say I am really uncomfortable with this particular decision - I know moderators have a hard time keeping everything under control, but an invitation to the rest of the forums to join us for a party seems quite harmless (and pointless to have on the GLBTQ board, given that it would only reach the GLBTQ regulars anyway). Was there something offensive on the invitation thread that I missed?

Edit: Ah, Bexy posted before I did, glad to hear it's now in the lounge.


----------



## kayrae (Jul 7, 2009)

Well, I guess I suck. Because Mer posted her thread and jokingly I said something like, "Keep your gay threads on the GLBTQ board." I was just kidding around guys. Uh... I guess I was the dust-up... and I should be banned. I assumed it was common knowledge that I like gays and that my comment would be seen as cheeky.

I guess not. My bad.



GoldenDelicious said:


> No actually, Mer got a PM from a moderator saying it was being removed because it was creating a dust up THEN they moved it to the GLBTQ board when she questioned it. THEN they banned her and did not explain why. she has been banned until the 22nd of July and is very disappointed in the homaphobia. If there is some other reason then someone please explain it to me!!


----------



## mossystate (Jul 7, 2009)

As I was telling mer......stuff is always moving from the Main board, if it does not belong there.

If her thread had been moved to the LGBTQ forum, well, that would have been kind of stupid, as there is already a thread about it there.


There is no side to take, as this was just a moving of a thread to its correct forum. This one was not about homophobia. I don't know about the dust.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 7, 2009)

FWIW, short answer to a very spiteful question - NO! The mods here are about as homophobic as they are sexist, racist, ageist or sizeist. Find a more even-handed, restrained and tolerant group of Mods anywhere on the web and I'll kiss my own hairy ass. I frequent a number of sites that deal with controversial to toxic issues. The mods here generally make Andy of Mayberry look like the fecking Gestapo. Some of us have seen a little too well what that word _really_ means. Please try to be a little more discrete with it. JMO.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 7, 2009)

Its not about being homophobic and its really frustrating to me that the two of you are even suggesting that it is. 

You can't just assume that something you don't like happened because the people that did it are homophobes. 




GoldenDelicious said:


> No actually, Mer got a PM from a moderator saying it was being removed because it was creating a dust up THEN they moved it to the GLBTQ board when she questioned it. THEN they banned her and did not explain why. she has been banned until the 22nd of July and is very disappointed in the homaphobia. If there is some other reason then someone please explain it to me!!


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 7, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Its not about being homophobic and its really frustrating to me that the two of you are even suggesting that it is.
> 
> You can't just assume that something you don't like happened because the people that did it are homophobes.



it wasn't an assumption, it was a question, and considering how threads such as the oral sex thread in the fa forum was removed rather than moved to the fat sexuality board, i think it's acceptable - if brash - to ask wtf outright. countdown to thread removal...


----------



## kayrae (Jul 7, 2009)

I kinda ruined out Fat Queer Pride Party. My apologies.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 7, 2009)

Well maybe I'm not looking at the same screen as you because on mine it shows that it was moved. Unless we are talking about totall different posts. 



kayrae said:


> Her post wasn't moved to the GLBTQ board. It was deleted. Usually the mods PM the member to explain why their post was deleted. Perhaps it's still being written? *cross our fingers*



View attachment dim.jpg


----------



## MatthewB (Jul 7, 2009)

Well, um... I guess we'll see her back on the 22nd, then? :blush:


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 7, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> it wasn't an assumption, it was a question, and considering how threads such as the oral sex thread in the fa forum was removed rather than moved to the fat sexuality board, i think it's acceptable - if brash - to ask wtf outright. countdown to thread removal...




I agree, there's nothing wrong with wanting to know what happened.

On the assumption part we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 7, 2009)

if its not homophobia its a shame that something has been done that makes it look as though it might be. this really needs to be cleared up. hopefully someone was just trying to figure out exactly where the posts should go. 

i had my thread on FA sexuality moved to the FA forum even though it was basically addressed to BBWs. i don't really mind but i worry that some BBWs might not read it in the FA forums. FAs were supposed to read and participate but not exclusively. i know that everyone is welcomed on the FA forum but i prefer for FAs to post what they want in thier own forum with only an occasional comment from me. even if i comment in my own thread there i feel as though i need to step back because it is an FA forum and its only fair that their voices be heard first somewhere anyway.

what seems to cause a lot of problems here is a lack of communicaton. no one paid me the respect of telling me that my thread would be moved or why either. sure they don't have to but it would have been nice and it wouldn't have left me wondering why and trying not to make any negative assumptions following that.


----------



## Tina (Jul 7, 2009)

A moderator moved it here (gah! sorry! something else was stuck to my clipboard and the thread URL didn't take); it was not deleted. And yes, we are very homophobic, which is why we voted the GLBTQ into existence. I think the invitation and thread is cute, but the drama, assumptions and false accusations are over the top.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Its not about being homophobic and its really frustrating to me that the two of you are even suggesting that it is.
> 
> You can't just assume that something you don't like happened because the people that did it are homophobes.


Well like you said already, you are not a moderator so I guess it's not up to you to provide the answers. Just for your info though, she didn't get a warning or explanation, hence the reasons we two are drawing our own conclusions.


----------



## mossystate (Jul 7, 2009)

If the Main board were full of off-topic threads ( and I have not looked ) then I would agree that something was really stinking up the place...


....but.....I have seen lots of threads moved. I don't know all that went on behind the scenes, in terms of if the thread was plucked and not transplanted right away.


I am the *last* person to kiss any mod ass *L*......this one is the same as having a birthday thread moved to the lounge. People!


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

Tina said:


> A moderator moved it here; it was not deleted. And yes, we are very homophobic, which is why we voted the GLBTQ into existence. I think the invitation and thread is cute, but the drama, assumptions and false accusations are over the top.


It is over the top to ban her without warning or explanation and we didn't say all moderators were homophobic. Maybe whoever took offence at Mers thread was judgemental and misjudging at that.


----------



## Ash (Jul 7, 2009)

The moderation team tries to be diplomatic about things. If the placement of the post is questioned by a moderator or by other members, it can be moved off of the boards and discussed. If it looked like mer's post was creating a "dust up" (and we don't really know here whether or not it was--it and kayrae's post could have been reported 80 times for all we know; that's the nature of misunderstandings on the internet), the mods probably pulled it to talk about it. It's not unreasonable and they're not homophobic.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 7, 2009)

Tina said:


> A moderator moved it here (gah! sorry! something else was stuck to my clipboard and the thread URL didn't take); it was not deleted. And yes, we are very homophobic, which is why we voted the GLBTQ into existence. I think the invitation and thread is cute, but the drama, assumptions and false accusations are over the top.



you have to tell somebody. people are sensitive:kiss2:


----------



## Keb (Jul 7, 2009)

Golden, if you want an answer from the moderators, ask the moderators. Seriously. Homophobic is a pretty serious word to throw around (well, for what it means, I personally find it a very silly word, but the accusation behind it is quite serious), and phrasing the question the way you did in public is inviting answers from the general population. 

And having been a mod on a few other sites, I have to say, you mostly sound like you're throwing a temper tantrum over something that the mods probably had a very good reason for choosing to do. It's not very flattering.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 7, 2009)

You asked a question, I said what I thought. Or did the question only apply to people who agree with you? 



GoldenDelicious said:


> Well like you said already, you are not a moderator so I guess it's not up to you to provide the answers. Just for your info though, she didn't get a warning or explanation, hence the reasons we two are drawing our own conclusions.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 7, 2009)

Ashley said:


> The moderation team tries to be diplomatic about things. If the placement of the post is questioned by a moderator or by other members, it can be moved off of the boards and discussed. If it looked like mer's post was creating a "dust up" (and we don't really know here whether or not it was--it and kayrae's post could have been reported 80 times for all we know; that's the nature of misunderstandings on the internet), the mods probably pulled it to talk about it. It's not unreasonable and they're not homophobic.



you make some great points but you understand it better than most people here because you are closer to how things work. if the people here knew what you knew they'd probably have the same opinion. the problem is that they don't know.


----------



## Webmaster (Jul 7, 2009)

Of course Dimensions isn't homophobic! Never has been, and that goes back to when I started it in 1984. And I certainly wouldn't have started the GLBTQ board if we were not welcoming the folks behind it. 

As has been stated, the flipside of having so many boards for different interests is that at times it isn't always clear where a post or thread belongs. So sometimes threads are moved and sometimes it isn't totally clear where a post or thread should be. 



GoldenDelicious said:


> I have just had a discussion with my beloved Mergirl who is thinking of quitting Dimensions because she is so disgusted at having her posts removed. Firstly Any FA or BBW or BHM who happens to be gay, should not have their views or invitations to other non-gays restricted to the LGBTQ board. Secondly as this is a size positive site why then do other people's posts not get removed when they are just ranting about any old crap if it is nothing to do with being fat or fat positive.? I'll tell you why...because there is more to human beings than their weight OR their sexuality!!!
> 
> If Mer wanted to invite people to join a gay party online then what is the problem with that? Should the moderaters just be allowed to remove it with no explanation nor cause?
> 
> ...


----------



## Teleute (Jul 7, 2009)

Oof, it's awkward going back and forth between these two threads. So, I don't think shouting on either side is going to help sort this out... this is what I see so far in this discussion:

a) Mergirl was banned
b) Mergirl wasn't told why she was banned, and because she'd had some fuss already over the invitation thread, thought it was for that reason
c) A ban for posting an invitation to a queer party on another forum would be easily taken as homophobic
d) According to mods, the ban was not for posting that thread
e) There was some weirdness about the movement of the thread - she was told it was being deleted, but then it was moved to the lounge
f) Other possible causes of the ban are Mergirl posting "fuck you" in the blah blah blah thread, and Mergirl messaging the mod who had notified her about deleting the invitation thread asking why it was going to be deleted

Given that the ban was not for the invitation thread, I can't see homophobia being a valid accusation. However, a ban for silly posts in a generally mindless thread seems odd, and a ban for a polite inquiry about a moderator's decision is scary to me. I'd be interested in hearing the mod's point of view here, as the ban does seem a little unwarranted given the information we currently have, and I haven't seen much unreasonable behavior from our mods so I would guess there's more to the conversation.


----------



## Ash (Jul 7, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> you make some great points but you understand it better than most people here because you are closer to how things work. if the people here knew what you knew they'd probably have the same opinion. the problem is that they don't know.



Well I'm not a moderator, and I've never been one here. I have been around here for a longgggg time, though, and I'm naturally an observer. None of what I said in my post comes from anything other than sitting back and watching how things work and choosing not to overreact to things with which I disagree.


----------



## Observer (Jul 7, 2009)

Umm, I think Tina's link was meant to go here.

I'm the one who moderated Mergirl's second post (after the first was placed in moderation) and advised her to have patience while it was being decided what to do with the first. As has been noted, cross-posting the same thing on multiple boards has been an ongoing problem. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Instead of following my advice she chose to cut loose on all mods in general with accusations of gender bias and "institutional homophobia." (I wasn't even the decision maker on this one, but because I'd tried to calm her down I became a target).

The Library on tis site for which I am curator has any number of gay and lesbisan authors and themed stories, including an entire archive forum. The acton taken today was the direct consequence of Mergirl's own personal actions, not any homophobia on the part of anyone. I personally wish she could have taken another course of action, as I suggested to her, than the one she chose - I tried to avert it.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> Of course Dimensions isn't homophobic! Never has been, and that goes back to when I started it in 1984. And I certainly wouldn't have started the GLBTQ board if we were not welcoming the folks behind it.
> 
> As has been stated, the flipside of having so many boards for different interests is that at times it isn't always clear where a post or thread belongs. So sometimes threads are moved and sometimes it isn't totally clear where a post or thread should be.


Yes, fair enough and Mer didn't think Dims mods were in any way homaphobic until she received a pm form a mod saying her thread had created a 'dust up'. What does this mean exactlactly? It seems that we afre being kept in our place more than others some how.

Please explain the actual reasons for her ban and why she did not receive a warning? The moderator in question has sent me a PM saying that she sent an infraction however she did not receive it and now cannot log on to read anything so is rather in the dark.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 7, 2009)

Ashley said:


> Well I'm not a moderator, and I've never been one here. I have been around here for a longgggg time, though, and I'm naturally an observer. None of what I said in my post comes from anything other than sitting back and watching how things work and choosing not to overreact to things with which I disagree.




sure, i think there was a lot of sensitivity here. but i also think that it was not unforeseeable. you are very intelligent and i'm sure you can determine a lot for yourself but don't underestimate the people around you who are in the know who give you a good perspective on how things really work here. other people don't have that opportunity. so its good to see that side too. i've been here a while as well, much longer as a lurker before my join date, but i'm sure i don't have nearly as much knowledge about this stuff as you probably do


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> Umm, I think Tina's link was meant to go here.
> 
> I'm the one who moderated Mergirl's second post (after the first was placed in moderation) and advised her to have patience while it was being decided what to do with the first. As has been noted, cross-posting the same thing on multiple boards has been an ongoing problem. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Instead of following my advice she chose to cut loose on all mods in general with accusations of gender bias and "institutional homophobia." (I wasn't even the decision maker on this one, but because I'd tried to calm her down I became a target).
> 
> The Library on tis site for which I am curator has any number of gay and lesbisan authors and themed stories, including an entire archive forum. The acton taken today was the direct consequence of Mergirl's own personal actions, not any homophobia on the part of anyone. I personally wish she could have taken another course of action, as I suggested to her, than the one she chose - I tried to avert it.


You were a target of what? The reason she crossed over was because you said it wasn't allowed on the main board, she meant no personal attack on anyone and merely wanted people to join in the virtual party. I wouldn't say you are a target. You told her that her post caused a 'dust up' what exactly does that mean? Also, gender bias was never an issue.


----------



## supersoup (Jul 7, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> you make some great points but you understand it better than most people here because you are closer to how things work. if the people here knew what you knew they'd probably have the same opinion. the problem is that they don't know.





superodalisque said:


> sure, i think there was a lot of sensitivity here. but i also think that it was not unforeseeable. you are very intelligent and i'm sure you can determine a lot for yourself but don't underestimate the people around you who are in the know who give you a good perspective on how things really work here. other people don't have that opportunity. so its good to see that side too. i've been here a while as well, much longer as a lurker before my join date, but i'm sure i don't have nearly as much knowledge about this stuff as you probably do



i'm not sure i understand what's being said in these two quotes, but i have to say that it makes me extremely uncomfortable. ashley is just speaking as a poster, nothing more. i live with ashley, i'm with her 24//7. she has no inside track, and neither do i, so i really do not understand what you are getting at with this. how is she any closer to how things work than you are?

this whole thing is unnecessary. it really and truly sucks when people we like get banned, but this is conrad's board. we don't know what got reported if it got reported at all...all we know is that moderators appointed by the board's owner took care of something that was apparently against the rules.


----------



## Observer (Jul 7, 2009)

What is meant by “dust-up?”

According to the Free Dictionary, here “Dust up &#8211;slang term meaning a row, dispute, disagreement or argument about something important”

The phrase is probably more common in America than Scotland, but in this case the question was over where the post belonged and there initially was not common agreement among the mods, so it took some time. 

I checked my message advocating patience and it specifically states the post had been “put on hold … pending a decision what to do with it.” At no time did I or anyone else to my knowledge say that it had been or was going to be deleted. As we all know it wasn’t and still exists, but in the Lounge. 

As for gender bias not being an issue, why the use of the term "institutionalized homophobia" and a thread about whether mods are homophobic?


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> What is meant by “dust-up?”
> 
> According to the Free Dictionary, here “Dust up &#8211;slang term meaning a row, dispute, disagreement or argument about something important”
> 
> ...


Thats nothing to do with gender, it's to do with sexuality. The term institutionalised homophobia and people being homophobic has nothing to to with any gender bias.


----------



## Teleute (Jul 7, 2009)

Ohh, I thought that all that was in the blah blah blah thread was the "fuck you" and that's it - seems like there was more to it that I missed.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Thats nothing to do with gender, it's to do with sexuality. The term institutionalised homophobia and people being homophobic has nothing to to with any gender bias.


Also, I do not need a dictionary thanks I am well versed in the English language. The question what do you mean by dust up wasn't 'please explain the meaning for me' I meant explain your reason for using the term and what did mergirl do to cause a dust up. You are right though, it is not a commonly used phrase in Scotland, we tend to say what me mean and not use colloquialisms.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

Teleute said:


> Ohh, I thought that all that was in the blah blah blah thread was the "fuck you" and that's it - seems like there was more to it that I missed.


there certainly was and it was edited to make mergirl look bad.


----------



## Observer (Jul 7, 2009)

There was no edit - there was a quote by our Webmaster from a longer rant that was later deleted. 

For a similar one which can be read in full context, see post #124 of this thread:



Mergirl said:


> Both my posts were deleted and i was informed that my posts caused a "dust storm". ???????
> 
> THIS is *institutionalised Homophobia* -A dust storm??!! WTF!?
> Yeah..whatever..*had this related to any other minority group *i would be fucking raging too!! Plus, it just wouldn't have happened
> ...



The phrase was "dust up," not "dust storm," and nothing was represented as having been deleted or about to be. But when you name call in the fashion above, the issue escalates into more than a discussion of post placement.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> There was no edit - there was a quote by our Webmaster from a longer rant that was later deleted.
> 
> For a similar one which can be read in full context, see post #124 of this thread:
> 
> ...


Ok,she got it slightly mixed up, dust storm, dust up, whatever. Rather pedantic. Again you have posted this out of context of the rest of the postings on the blah blah blah thread and making Mer look confrontational which she is not. Mouthy yes, opinionated yes, but NOT confrontational or personally insulting or agressive to anyone. Enough said I think


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 7, 2009)

supersoup said:


> i'm not sure i understand what's being said in these two quotes, but i have to say that it makes me extremely uncomfortable. ashley is just speaking as a poster, nothing more. i live with ashley, i'm with her 24//7. she has no inside track, and neither do i, so i really do not understand what you are getting at with this. how is she any closer to how things work than you are?
> 
> this whole thing is unnecessary. it really and truly sucks when people we like get banned, but this is conrad's board. we don't know what got reported if it got reported at all...all we know is that moderators appointed by the board's owner took care of something that was apparently against the rules.



exactly! all i'm saying is that it easier for people to trust if they know and understand exactly how they did something that was against the rules. people just kinda like to know why. there is nothing nasty going on just miscommunication. sometimes you just have to tell a person. it just makes it clearer and easier for everyone. not everyone is aware of exactly how dims works particularly if you don't tell them.

as for the quotes, sorry if that seemed to indicate something you assumed was negative. i was never aware that mods took things off and discussed them together. i had never seen that said before. so i assumed that Ashley knew something i had never read here and i'm glad she knew it so that she could tell us so when something disapears in the future people will know that its probably just being moved instead of deleted and we can avoid all of this.


----------



## mossystate (Jul 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> There was no edit - there was a quote by our Webmaster from a longer rant that was later deleted.




I suppose I could report him for doing that. 

Mr. Webmaster...that might not be the coolest move in the world, seeing how the whole post of hers was deleted.


----------



## Observer (Jul 7, 2009)

If you had clicked on the link you would know that the quiotes weren't from the Blah Blah thread (although the deleted material there was similar). 

The point is that she was making rather ugly generalizations about our mod staff, accusing them of biases we do not harbor, simply because she wasn't getting her way. I find such accusations pretty confrontational - and counterproductive.

eta: btw Mossy, when we say "delete" its a soft delete. If Conrad so desires we can bring it back, but what purpose would that serve? We know what her sentimemts are - it would just reinforce the fact of her having expressed them more than once. .


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 7, 2009)

mossystate said:


> I suppose I could report him for doing that.
> 
> Mr. Webmaster...that might not be the coolest move in the world, seeing how the whole post of hers was deleted.


Here here, its ok for some to break the rules then eh? Not cool at all. I made it therefore I can destroy it, lmao.


----------



## mossystate (Jul 7, 2009)

OK, let's keep splitting that short and curly. ( observer )


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> If you had clicked on the link you would know that the quiotes weren't from the Blah Blah thread (although the deleted material there was similar).
> 
> The point is that she was making rather ugly generalizations about our mod staff, accusing them of biases we do not harbor, simply because she wasn't getting her way. I find such accusations pretty confrontational - and counterproductive.
> 
> eta: btw Mossy, when we say "delete" its a soft delete. If Conrad so desires we can bring it back, but what purpose would that serve? We know what her sentimemts are - it would just reinforce the fact of her having expressed them more than once. .



i'm sure you guys had the best intentions but you have to admit that to people who are sensitive about thier minority status this just looks bad. there are ways and then there are ways. i think Tina handled it very well when she explained what happened here on this thread. instead of trying to defend it just do better in the future so that people don't get this angry to begin with. and it wouldn't hurt to tell people that what you did was well within range but you're sorry that they got the wrong idea. what's so hard about that? i think it could have gone a long way if someone had just said that it was thought that the initial posts should be moved and that y'all were deciding where and they should hang on BEFORE anything was done. i think this has been counterproductive as well. in order to avoid counterproductivity you need clear open and sensitive communication with people especially if they are a part of a group that already feels vulnerable because of thier social situation--at least thats what they told me in conflict resolution. its all of this AFTER the fact stuff that really wastes people's time. and it really doesn't make sense to be defending against something that couldn't be helped but just escalated.


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 7, 2009)




----------



## superodalisque (Jul 7, 2009)

Blackjack said:


>



i have to say highly appropriate


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 7, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> I agree, there's nothing wrong with wanting to know what happened.
> 
> On the assumption part we will just have to agree to disagree.



while it was a little presumptuous, i can vouch for dealing with unnamed mods' political biases.


----------



## mossystate (Jul 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> eta: btw Mossy, when we say "delete" its a soft delete. If Conrad so desires we can bring it back, but what purpose would that serve? We know what her sentimemts are - it would just reinforce the fact of her having expressed them more than once. .



Btw, Observer...you did not understand what I said. I never said posts should be brought back. I was saying that, perhaps parts of deleted posts should not be used. I hope that clears it up for ya.


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 7, 2009)

Teleute said:


> b) Mergirl wasn't told why she was banned,



this though


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 7, 2009)

maaan


----------



## Teleute (Jul 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> The point is that she was making rather ugly generalizations about our mod staff, accusing them of biases we do not harbor, simply because she wasn't getting her way. I find such accusations pretty confrontational - and counterproductive.



Thanks for clarifying the reasons behind the ban, Observer. I can definitely see why the mods would be less than happy with being accused of such things. However, I suspect that Mergirl really DID feel hurt and like she was being treated unfairly, not just throwing a tantrum because she wasn't getting her way - although she perhaps chose poorly regarding the appropriate expression of that feeling, I don't think she was trying to stir up trouble for trouble's sake. 



GoldenDelicious said:


> ...making Mer look confrontational which she is not. Mouthy yes, opinionated yes, but NOT confrontational or personally insulting or agressive to anyone. Enough said I think



I agree - my experience with Mergirl certainly makes me think she doesn't go about trying to hurt people, although it's clear people felt hurt in this case even though that wasn't her intention. It seems like it was kinda horrible miscommunication all around that got blown up hugely out of proportion. SuperO is totally right about the clear, open communication being really important. At least there's been a lot of information in this thread about how the moderation works here; the "soft delete" and moderator discussion about these kinds of topics is really helpful for me to know about as a forum member - it means I don't have to panic if I see that a thread of mine has suddenly gone into limbo, I can still chat with a mod to see what's happening with it.


----------



## kioewen (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> I made it therefore I can destroy it.


Yes, I would generally agree with that idea.


----------



## goodthings (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> I have just had a discussion with my beloved Mergirl who is thinking of quitting Dimensions because she is so disgusted at having her posts removed. Firstly Any FA or BBW or BHM who happens to be gay, should not have their views or invitations to other non-gays restricted to the LGBTQ board. Secondly as this is a size positive site why then do other people's posts not get removed when they are just ranting about any old crap if it is nothing to do with being fat or fat positive.? I'll tell you why...because there is more to human beings than their weight OR their sexuality!!!
> 
> If Mer wanted to invite people to join a gay party online then what is the problem with that? Should the moderaters just be allowed to remove it with no explanation nor cause?
> 
> ...



One of our Canadian's posted on one of the regular boards wondering if anyone (besides those of us in the Canada forum) would be interested if we had a Canadian bash and they removed her thread on the main boards back to the Canadian only board. I think it is odd, but I think that is the thing about a place like this, the people who make the "rules" are often very rigid and want to keep certain topics in the boxes presented without much room for interpretation


----------



## Ash (Jul 8, 2009)

goodthings said:


> One of our Canadian's posted on one of the regular boards wondering if anyone (besides those of us in the Canada forum) would be interested if we had a Canadian bash and they removed her thread on the main boards back to the Canadian only board. I think it is odd, but I think that is the thing about a place like this, the people who make the "rules" are often very rigid and want to keep certain topics in the boxes presented without much room for interpretation



Sadly, we as members asked for a lot of those boxes.


----------



## Tina (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Ok,she got it slightly mixed up, dust storm, dust up, whatever. Rather pedantic. Again you have posted this out of context of the rest of the postings on the blah blah blah thread and making Mer look confrontational which she is not. Mouthy yes, opinionated yes, but NOT confrontational or personally insulting or agressive to anyone. Enough said I think


Calling us mods homophobes, old (in an insulting way), multiple times, controlling, and telling us "fuck you," multiple times, isn't confrontational, personally insulting or aggressive? C'mon. Let's at least be real here. Feel as you feel; I'll not try to invalidate your feelings. But these assertions right here are not true.


goodthings said:


> One of our Canadian's posted on one of the regular boards wondering if anyone (besides those of us in the Canada forum) would be interested if we had a Canadian bash and they removed her thread on the main boards back to the Canadian only board. I think it is odd, but I think that is the thing about a place like this, the people who make the "rules" are often very rigid and want to keep certain topics in the boxes presented without much room for interpretation


I'm guessing that is because you were posting about an event, so it was moved to the events board. 

We have 55,652 threads and 1,203,969 posts in this forum, collectively. With all of the posters we have who post here, and with all of the many, many posts per day that are made, can you imagine what a mess the boards would be if we didn't try to keep it in some kind of order and stay on top of it?

I think a number of people see the Main board as a way of saying the General, catch-all board and it's not.


----------



## Emma (Jul 8, 2009)

Do you think Mer should get special allowances and rules because she is gay? I thought it was all about equality? There is nothing equal about using your sexuality in this manner. I get think its disgusting when people start using their race or sexuality in an argument/dispute when they have no other cards left to pull. True equality is about being equal with everyone else, not using the homophobia card when it suits you.


----------



## stan_der_man (Jul 8, 2009)

I wouldn't say homophobic per se... But I have been censored for talk of rear-rodding and lickin' the cat if you know what I'm saying...


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (Jul 8, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> I wouldn't say homophobic per se... But I have been censored for talk of rear-rodding and lickin' the cat if you know what I'm saying...



Censoring isn't homophobia _at all_, not just per se, and we have a board that would allow free talk about mature content so people wouldn't be bringing it up everywhere else. Just because everybody here is above 18 doesn't mean every thread here should be R-rated.

And this whole situation is confusing, I still don't get why Mergirl was banned and not just warned.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 8, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> I wouldn't say homophobic per se... But I have been censored for talk of rear-rodding and lickin' the cat if you know what I'm saying...



LMAO!! Stan you are such a bad boy!! :wubu:


----------



## pdgujer148 (Jul 8, 2009)

OP. In my experience, NOPE.


----------



## Littleghost (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Also, I do not need a dictionary thanks I am well versed in the English language. The question what do you mean by dust up wasn't 'please explain the meaning for me' I meant explain your reason for using the term and what did mergirl do to cause a dust up. You are right though, it is not a commonly used phrase in Scotland, we tend to say what me mean and not use colloquialisms.



Honestly? Not dealing much with the mods individually to fully get an idea of the situation before starting a thread like this doesn't put you or Mer in a good light at all. So you can't blame it all on people painting you bad. Especially when it's obvious that you're not just innocently asking a question but more slinging accusations and trying to rile up support.

I'd advocate for a Drama board so we can avoid this stuff that keeps coming up, but I guess that was Hyde Park.


----------



## Wild Zero (Jul 8, 2009)

Littleghost said:


> I'd advocate for a Drama board so we can avoid this stuff that keeps coming up, but I guess that was Hyde Park.



I'd just advocate people keep their heads on straight when their posts are moderated. Nobody ever got banned for conducting a dialog with the mods through PM. It's not hard, if you ask a question and get an answer that's vague narrow your questions until you get a clear answer. 

There's certainly no need for crossposting and accusing the moderators of bigotry.


----------



## William (Jul 8, 2009)

One question I have often asked about Dimensions is why are the people who are reacting and causing the "Dust Up" never banned? It is the same people who seem to have a Dimensions' "Get out of jail free card" and can never do any wrong on Dimensions. Yet Mergirl is Banned.

I would Rep Mergirl if she was not Banned 

William





GoldenDelicious said:


> Also, I do not need a dictionary thanks I am well versed in the English language. The question what do you mean by dust up wasn't 'please explain the meaning for me' I meant explain your reason for using the term and what did mergirl do to cause a dust up. You are right though, it is not a commonly used phrase in Scotland, we tend to say what me mean and not use colloquialisms.


----------



## agouderia (Jul 8, 2009)

.... part of this story actually sounds like an intercultural Anglo-American misunderstanding on the use of the English language.

The outward similiarities of the 2 versions of the language can be misleading: Everyday spoken/written English in Britain is blunter, rougher, less PC and much more peppered with 4-letter-words (even in educated contexts) than language commonly used in the US. 

As an American English speaker living/working in Europe, I've gotten my fair share of it .....


----------



## SocialbFly (Jul 8, 2009)

William said:


> One question I have often asked about Dimensions is why are the people who are reacting and causing the "Dust Up" never banned? It is the same people who seem to have a Dimensions' "Get out of jail free card" and can never do any wrong on Dimensions. Yet Mergirl is Banned.
> 
> I would Rep Mergirl if she was not Banned
> 
> William



while i read and was hoping i would behave and not post to what has become a debacle, i have to say William, you have got to be kidding me with this post. *shaking head*


----------



## butch (Jul 8, 2009)

fwiw, as a really obvious queer fatty and moderator here at Dims, I can say that I've never seen any homophobia from the moderating team. As one of the moderators of the GLBTQ forum, I can also say that nobody has ever been banned or reprimanded for being GLBTQ and posting about it on the boards. 

What happened yesterday makes me sad, because I like mergirl a lot and I'll miss her presence. I wasn't here to witness what happened yesterday, so I can't comment further. I hope we don't let this fracture our community anymore, and if anyone feels unwelcome at Dims for any reason, please PM me, and be patient for my response. After all, I tend to be the high priest of feeling out of place, and I've never felt ostracized here at Dimensions.


----------



## SocialbFly (Jul 8, 2009)

ok, deleted cause why play this game...

but hugs to Butch anyway


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Yes, fair enough and Mer didn't think Dims mods were in any way homaphobic until she received a pm form a mod saying her thread had created a 'dust up'. What does this mean exactlactly? It seems that we afre being kept in our place more than others some how.
> 
> Please explain the actual reasons for her ban and why she did not receive a warning? The moderator in question has sent me a PM saying that she sent an infraction however she did not receive it and now cannot log on to read anything so is rather in the dark.



GD, I think that there may have been a more innocent explanation. This is my interpretation, based only on what I saw:

Kayrae posted a very tongue-in-cheek response to Mer's invitation, although anyone who doesn't know her may have assumed it was a seriously critical (and homophobic) remark. I'm assuming that some people complained about her response. That may be what the mods meant by "a dust up" -- nothing wrong with Lisa's post (aside from maybe not belonging in that particular area) -- just that they'd received complaints about the thread and were moving it while deciding what to do. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, and I'm not trying to speak for anyone. Just giving you my interpretation. I think it was probably just a very unfortunate misunderstanding.


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 8, 2009)

William said:


> One question I have often asked about Dimensions is why are the people who are reacting and causing the "Dust Up" never banned? It is the same people who seem to have a Dimensions' "Get out of jail free card" and can never do any wrong on Dimensions. Yet Mergirl is Banned.
> 
> I would Rep Mergirl if she was not Banned
> 
> William


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Jul 8, 2009)

Are you, Blackjack, implying that all BHM literally keep potato chips on their shoulders? That. is a stereotype and just another example of how fat men are being marginalized on this forum. 

Business as usual on Dimensions.

- Justin


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 8, 2009)

You know what they say about people who assume.
I am sure with the variety of things Mods deal with they get overwhelmed, I am sure nobody intended to target anyone.


----------



## William (Jul 8, 2009)

Hi SBF

The worse of my behavior on Dimensions is that I will debate anyone and I will always answer them. 

Individuals and groups here stage disruptive shenanigans that sometimes fill pages with their nonsense. They never have to worry about the consequences.

William 





SocialbFly said:


> while i read and was hoping i would behave and not post to what has become a debacle, i have to say William, you have got to be kidding me with this post. *shaking head*


----------



## Emma (Jul 8, 2009)

William said:


> Hi SBF
> 
> The worse of my behavior on Dimensions is that I will debate anyone and I will always answer them.
> 
> ...



Do you mean when people go really off topic and post a lot of nonsense?


----------



## William (Jul 8, 2009)

Yes 

What if from this point on no matter what you posted all that I would answer would be something about Donuts. The people who do this would continue on with this for pages and pages because they know there are no consequences for them. 

If they are allowed to do this then Mergirl's original post should have been allowed. 

William



CurvyEm said:


> Do you mean when people go really off topic and post a lot of nonsense?


----------



## Observer (Jul 8, 2009)

If all this drama weren't so over the top already I'd bow as a BHM hijack the thread by posting recipes featuring potato chips!


----------



## James (Jul 8, 2009)

I think maybe what might be needed here is a bit of transparency of process to clear up any perceived wrongdoing or bias?

As a (relatively new) moderator I have access to the reported posts board. While I didn't witness the events as they occurred, a full record is present on that board. This includes a system-generated copy of the reported posts (both Kayrae's and mergirl's), the ensuing moderator discussion relating to them along with the rationale for the decisions that were taken in relation to them. 

In this case, a post was reported from the 7/7 thread, thus auto-generating a thread for moderator discussion in the mod forum. The thread went into unapproved status for moderator input and was then moved to the lounge after a brief mod discussion ensued. I have to say that everything I saw followed a clear process and at no point were homophobic behaviors evident at all. 

The reported post that led to the infraction was shown in full on the mod board and was a facsimile of the original and thus, for clarity, was *unedited by anyone*. Additionally, a system-generated copy of the infraction PM to mergirl was added to the mod board. This happens as due process so that all moderators know when and why infractions were issued, thus enabling us all to be up to date on poster histories across the boards when considering moderator actions in our individual boards.

As Tina infers, Mergirl's post in the blah blah blah thread was actionable on multiple levels (ageist, abusive, personal attacks) and does stand alone as a reason for her infraction. I like mergirl a lot but she went way overboard here. Perhaps a bit more explanation of process and how and why actions are taken might have averted the feelings of anger and discrimination that led to her blah blah blah post? Ultimately though, it looks to me like the gun was very much jumped and things were said that broke rules. Breaking rules has a consequence... and thats pretty much the long and the short of it...


----------



## thatgirl08 (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm not a moderator and don't have any 'in' with any of them. I'm not going to claim that I think they're always 100% fair because I don't but I think that generally, the moderators try to keep all personal bias out of their moderating and generally, their decisions are fair. I have never seen any homophobia coming from any moderator and all of them seemed to support the LGBTQ forum so I highly, highly doubt that homophobia is to blame. The fact that you would pull that card for seemingly no reason is extremely offensive and disheartening. If you want equality, act like you're equal.


----------



## Weeze (Jul 8, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I'm not a moderator and don't have any 'in' with any of them. I'm not going to claim that I think they're always 100% fair because I don't but I think that generally, the moderators try to keep all personal bias out of their moderating and generally, their decisions are fair. I have never seen any homophobia coming from any moderator and all of them seemed to support the LGBTQ forum so I highly, highly doubt that homophobia is to blame. The fact that you would pull that card for seemingly no reason is extremely offensive and disheartening. If you want equality, act like you're equal.



iiiiii can't rep you. darn it.


----------



## msbard90 (Jul 8, 2009)

I know that it is disheartening to have a post deleted, and sometimes done so with good reason. Many many dimmers post heartfelt comments, and it does hurt when you feel that the things you say "aren't as important" as your peers. Remember, this is just the internet, and dims is just a small part of that. There is so much rejection on the internet, even more so than in the real world because behind the mask of a computer, it is much easier to deliver the words felt inside. In regards to Mergirl, she has been an entertaining and interesting addition to the dims boards. However, maybe sometimes we all need a time out. Sometimes, it's for the best. If she decides to come back after her ban period, then I'm sure she will be welcomed back with open arms, and then some. If not, then I most certainly wish her the best. There is much more to live for in this world than this website.

much love,
Missi


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (Jul 8, 2009)

Do we really need two threads for this? The mods aren't homophobic, so it's really only worth discussing Mergirl's ban, over in the Lounge.


----------



## StarWitness (Jul 8, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> Are you, Blackjack, implying that all BHM literally keep potato chips on their shoulders? That. is a stereotype and just another example of how fat men are being marginalized on this forum.
> 
> Business as usual on Dimensions.
> 
> - Justin



Are you implying that all BHM do not keep potato chips on their shoulders?

Because that just made my world a little less magical.

THANKS DICK.


----------



## Mathias (Jul 8, 2009)

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 8, 2009)

we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below

.http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74

there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below
> 
> .http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74
> 
> there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.



Truly, a poll that has options which are intentionally offensive and humourous means that anyone who selects one of those answers subscribes _exactly _to the line of thinking of the answer.

The poll has an option for "I love tater tots!" for chrissake. This is evidence?


----------



## Mathias (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below
> 
> .http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74
> 
> there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.



You've got two other mods who are fine with it.


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 8, 2009)

Quick question : How many boards and spots is this debate going to rage on? I see we have some how skipped putting this one on the foodee board. Perhaps the OP could take pictures for the Pay Site Board.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below
> 
> .http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74
> 
> there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.



I agree that it is insulting for people to accuse you & Mer of playing the 'gay card'. I absolutely believe that your feelings of hurt and anger are genuine. 

I also agree that there are many examples of ignorance displayed here, including overt homophobia. I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'institutionalized', though (especially since that very term probably wouldn't be applicable to a message board ). I'd just say that there are ignorant people everywhere, and there are no exceptions here. I believe that the moderators take action when they are informed of the blatant stuff. The more subtle things ... much as I hate them, right along with you, I can see where it would be difficult to balance between letting people express themselves within the confines of the rules, and being accused of censoring free expression. 

GD, with a lot of fond respect, I think that what happened here is that Lisa got angry and upset, and she reacted in a way that was against the rules of Dims conduct. I'm not criticizing you or her ... believe me, I've done the same thing, a number of times. I can be very impulsive when my dander is up, or I feel that an important personal value has been violated (whether there is evidence to support that belief or not). I can see that Lisa is my gay Scottish twinner (only cuter, and more prone to creatively misspelled adventures) 

As far as the example you've provided, I think that everyone, even moderators, is entitled to an opinion. It would be another story altogether if that moderator refused to take action on blatant rule violations because of her personal beliefs. Do you have evidence of that happening?


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below
> 
> .http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74
> 
> there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.



Interesting. Considering you came onto the Dimensions board and immediately started questioning people about their preferences, I don't see how you can possibly sit there and get all defensive. 

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48596 

Pretty sure you'd consider some one asking you why you were gay and prefacing it with "I don't agree with it or understand it" to be very offensive, but hey, there it is.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 8, 2009)

Blackjack said:


> Truly, a poll that has options which are intentionally offensive and humourous means that anyone who selects one of those answers subscribes _exactly _to the line of thinking of the answer.
> 
> The poll has an option for "I love tater tots!" for chrissake. This is evidence?



And aside from the tater tots option the way the question was worded says people don't like it because their religion says its icky.

*It's wrong because <insert deity, prophet or religious text here> says that homosexuals are icky. *

And moderator or not she is allowed to have an opinion on the subject. As long as she doesn't go around deleted all the gay threads or posting on the gay board saying that homosexuality is a sin or something like that then I have no problem with her answer.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below
> 
> .http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74
> 
> there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.



Come on. First off, I have no idea how you got a hold of that link because I have never ever ever seen a poll in which the results were public as far as who gave what answer.

Secondly, the "religious leader says they're icky" choice was so clearly sarcasm. The use of the word "icky" should clue you into that. If one were against gay marriage for religious reasons, it would be articulated with much more respect, i.e. "I'm opposed for religious reasons" or "As a strict Catholic, I oppose gay marriage because I adhere to all the Church's teachings."

If there are "a few people" who are homophobic, that is in no way either "institutionalized" and the presence of a gay specific board and (as i've already said) numerous openly gay posters and posters who have said they are supporters of gay rights should indicate otherwise. Like it or not, some people ARE homophobes and whatever it's based on, they still enjoy free speech and the right to their beliefs.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 8, 2009)

Blackjack said:


> Truly, a poll that has options which are intentionally offensive and humourous means that anyone who selects one of those answers subscribes _exactly _to the line of thinking of the answer.
> 
> The poll has an option for "I love tater tots!" for chrissake. This is evidence?


Oh really I do despair. That is like saying it is ok for a comedian to tell racist or sexist jokes because as long as they are funny or there is humour involved it is ok. No it is not ok and I think the additional do you like tater tots or whatever was for people who were uncomfortable with the poll or wanted to give a rediculous answer to a rediculous poll.

Would it be ok for me to make a poll asking if all African Americans should be deported to Africa but if I threw in a wee addition at the bottom, do you like ice-cream then it's ok and we should all lighten up. NO I DON'T THINK SO, IT'S PREJUDICE, SMALL MINDED BIGOTRY. Just as bad as being against gay relationships or gay marriage and not considering people as equal. You are like a bad bernard manning and thankfully they are a dying breed of comedian these days


----------



## Mathias (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Oh really I do despair. That is like saying it is ok for a comedian to tell racist or sexist jokes because as long as they are funny or there is humour involved it is ok. No it is not ok and I think the additional do you like tater tots or whatever was for people who were uncomfortable with the poll or wanted to give a rediculous answer to a rediculous poll.
> 
> Would it be ok for me to make a poll asking if all African Americans should be deported to Africa but if I threw in a wee addition at the bottom, do you like ice-cream then it's ok and we should all lighten up. NO I DON'T THINK SO, IT'S PREJUDICE, SMALL MINDED BIGOTRY. Just as bad as being against gay relationships or gay marriage and not considering people as equal. You are like a bad bernard manning and thankfully they are a dying breed of comedian these days



The GLBTQ forum wouldn't even be there if the mods were homophobic.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jul 8, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> If there are "a few people" who are homophobic, that is in no way either "institutionalized" and *the presence of a gay specific board and (as i've already said) numerous openly gay posters and posters who have said they are supporters of gay rights should indicate otherwise*. Like it or not, some people ARE homophobes and whatever it's based on, they still enjoy free speech and the right to their beliefs.



Well, we abolished slavery, allowed women & minorities the opportunity to vote, and introduced affirmative action to our laws. Does this mean that sexism and racism doesn't exist? I agree with what you are saying overall, but cringe every time I see variations on the "we aren't homophobes coz we let the gays have their own board" line of reasoning.


----------



## William (Jul 8, 2009)

Hi LoveBHMs

Those were the 5 choices that people could pick from in the poll, people could not write in their answer,

William




LoveBHMS said:


> Come on. First off, I have no idea how you got a hold of that link because I have never ever ever seen a poll in which the results were public as far as who gave what answer.
> 
> Secondly, the "religious leader says they're icky" choice was so clearly sarcasm. The use of the word "icky" should clue you into that. If one were against gay marriage for religious reasons, it would be articulated with much more respect, i.e. "I'm opposed for religious reasons" or "As a strict Catholic, I oppose gay marriage because I adhere to all the Church's teachings."
> 
> If there are "a few people" who are homophobic, that is in no way either "institutionalized" and the presence of a gay specific board and (as i've already said) numerous openly gay posters and posters who have said they are supporters of gay rights should indicate otherwise. Like it or not, some people ARE homophobes and whatever it's based on, they still enjoy free speech and the right to their beliefs.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 8, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> Interesting. Considering you came onto the Dimensions board and immediately started questioning people about their preferences, I don't see how you can possibly sit there and get all defensive.
> 
> http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48596
> 
> Pretty sure you'd consider some one asking you why you were gay and prefacing it with "I don't agree with it or understand it" to be very offensive, but hey, there it is.


and your point is? Yes I was new to dims and I was genuinely interested in finding out the answers. After which I had a change in my perspective of feederism and more of an understanding. I'm sorry I can't say the same fro others on the boards but well done on you attempts to dig for dirt to expose, continue at your leisure


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 8, 2009)

Mathias said:


> The GLBTQ forum wouldn't even be there if the mods were homophobic.


That's like saying there are no racists in parliament because balck people have the right to vote.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Oh really I do despair. That is like saying it is ok for a comedian to tell racist or sexist jokes because as long as they are funny or there is humour involved it is ok. No it is not ok and I think the additional do you like tater tots or whatever was for people who were uncomfortable with the poll or wanted to give a rediculous answer to a rediculous poll.
> 
> Would it be ok for me to make a poll asking if all African Americans should be deported to Africa but if I threw in a wee addition at the bottom, do you like ice-cream then it's ok and we should all lighten up. NO I DON'T THINK SO, IT'S PREJUDICE, SMALL MINDED BIGOTRY. Just as bad as being against gay relationships or gay marriage and not considering people as equal. You are like a bad bernard manning and thankfully they are a dying breed of comedian these days



So now the fact of a poll about a particular political/social issue is ridiculous? And it's presence was 'small minded bigotry'? That is just nonsense.

I have no idea when that poll was done, several of the posters listed have not been here in well over a year, but at times, yes, gay marriage has been a topic of public discussion. Some are in favor, some are not, some are uncertain, and that is allowed without having an accusation tossed out about being small minded.

Whether you like it or not, people are entitled to be against gay marriage and not be attacked by you. I'm personally for it, but I don't think those who oppose it should be silenced from expressing their opinion or even for giving the reason for their opinion. I actually have a coworker who opposes it for religious reasons; he strictly follows the Catholic Church in all areas including that one and given that we have freeedom of religion in the USA, he's entitled whether or not I agree.

You've been accused of playing the gay card because you are doing just that. James's post laid out pretty much why mergirl was temporarily banned--it was her behaviour not her orientation. It's not as if a straight person can use abusive language or personal attacks and get away with it.


----------



## mango (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below
> 
> .http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74
> 
> there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.



*I read through the whole thread you linked to.
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6804

It's an old Hyde Park public poll & thread on same-sex marriage from about 3 years ago.

The OP had the word 'icky' included in one of the possible poll answers. 
(He was criticised at the time for some of the language used in the poll by several people).

I wasn't aware the OP in that thread was a mod... but his views on same-sex marriage explained later in that thread are anything but homophobic.

I didn't see the word icky pop up anywhere else in that thread.. from either mods or regular posters who contributed.
(correct me if I am wrong)

The people who I do know are mods and who posted in that thread actually voted and posted in favour of same-sex marriage (except for one vote).


I think the accusations of homophobia running rife in the mod department are a little bit of a stretch if you're basing it on the evidence above.


BTW I will state that I am NOT a mod nor do I have any inside track or connection into what goes on behind the scenes. 

*


----------



## Mathias (Jul 8, 2009)

It's nothing like that at all. Mer broke the rules by accusing the mods of being homophobic when there's overwhelming evidence that says the opposite.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> That's like saying there are no racists in parliament because balck people have the right to vote.




Any time you get a large group of people together with different religious and political beliefs you are going to have a great big mixing pot of opinions. There are gonna be racists, sexists, homophobes, agists and all kinds of other ists and obes. That's just life. 

I just think it was presumptious for you to automatically assume that it was homophobia that got Mer's post moved. I will be the first one to say and sign on paper that I feel Dimensions is over moderated, but everyone wanted all these different boards and with different boards come categories. It makes sense to me that the post was moved, even taken off temporarily until it was determined whether Kayrae's response to the post was serious or joking. The job of the moderators can't be an easy one, not with all the personalities posting around here.


----------



## cinnamitch (Jul 8, 2009)

Blackjack said:


>



Yummm , Chips:eat2:


----------



## cinnamitch (Jul 8, 2009)

Observer said:


> If all this drama weren't so over the top already I'd bow as a BHM hijack the thread by posting recipes featuring potato chips!



Get to posting!:happy:


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> That's like saying there are no racists in parliament because balck people have the right to vote.



No it's not.

Your issue was whether there was institutional homophobia on Dims, and if the mods were homophobes. There may be homophobes here but that does not mean the mods are homophobes or that rules are applied differently to straights and gays.

There probably are people that post here who don't like gays. Probably also racists, ageists, sexists and the like. If James' post is accurate, mergirl made an ageist comment. Heck, there was even an ageist comment on the Kirstie Alley thread along the lines of her "being attractive even though she's 58."

People are entitled to their opinion. So long as they don't break rules, they can post here.


----------



## Emma (Jul 8, 2009)

I posted a thread the other day that was temp deleted. The mod who did it messaged me to say why, I replied explaining why I thought my post was right for that board, the mod messaged me back suggesting some slight changes and then the thread was reinstated. 

Simple. 

If I'd have gone screaming and shouting at the mod, I expect I would have been banned too. But, I didn't.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Jul 8, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> I'd just advocate people keep their heads on straight when their posts are moderated. Nobody ever got banned for conducting a dialog with the mods through PM. It's not hard, if you ask a question and get an answer that's vague narrow your questions until you get a clear answer.
> 
> There's certainly no need for crossposting and accusing the moderators of bigotry.




It would be nice if everyone had your cool head, WZ. Good advice indeed. Hopefully more people will heed that advice - it would save a lot of drama.


----------



## Tina (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below
> 
> .http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74
> 
> there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.



Really? So because one mod makes that vote in an online poll, she and we are all homophobes.

Let's look at the term "institutionalized homophobia," GD. If Dimensions were an institution, and one could say that in some ways it is, then that means it's homophobic at its very core foundation. Conrad is the core foundation of Dimensions, and I have had the opportunity to read his posts when the GLBTQ board was being formed from a thought and request to reality. I can assure you, Conrad is not even a little homophobic.

Now, let's look at how Dimensions might suffer from institutionalized homophobia from the perspective of the moderators. The so-called proof is that one moderator cast a vote in a poll. Does one moderator's vote define us all? I voted, by fax, from here in Canada to try to overturn the proposed law in my resident state of California to do away with legalized gay marriage there. Unfortunately, the idiots won. I did not, however, participate in the poll here, so that is likely a sign of guilt. I am aware that that statement sounds rather dramatic and sarcastic; it's meant to be. Is there anyone who enjoys being painted by a broad brush? (unless that brush has been dipped in chocolate, anyway... ) So... no on that one, too.

Next, let's look at the board itself. Have there been homophobic remarks in posts? Yes, at times. We try to catch them as we can and delete them, but unless they are reported, we may or may not see them. That apparent silence by mods or a lack of editing/deletion is not even _close_ to what some might want to call "tacit agreement." I'll invoke the numbers of posters, threads and posts again. We do all tend to have lives away from the board. I, personally, get rid of, where I can, or report post where I see 'isms,' whether it be sizeism, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. I, as a mod, am not alone. Conrad and his administration team - us -- cannot guarantee that offensive remarks will never escape a person's fingertips and sit on the board until reported. If you want to call that "institutionalized homophobia," have at it, but understand that you will not only be wrong, but also offensive and insulting.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Jul 8, 2009)

msbard90 said:


> I know that it is disheartening to have a post deleted, and sometimes done so with good reason. Many many dimmers post heartfelt comments, and it does hurt when you feel that the things you say "aren't as important" as your peers. Remember, this is just the internet, and dims is just a small part of that. There is so much rejection on the internet, even more so than in the real world because behind the mask of a computer, it is much easier to deliver the words felt inside. In regards to Mergirl, she has been an entertaining and interesting addition to the dims boards. However, maybe sometimes we all need a time out. Sometimes, it's for the best. If she decides to come back after her ban period, then I'm sure she will be welcomed back with open arms, and then some. If not, then I most certainly wish her the best. There is much more to live for in this world than this website.
> 
> much love,
> Missi




It is very important to understand that if a post of yours gets deleted, it is *not personal*, and most definitely not because the things you say "aren't as important" as your peers.

If a post gets deleted it is for one of the following reasons:

1. what you posted was a rules violation (ie., personal attack, inappropriate content, etc.);

2. what you posted was a duplicate post; 

3. or what you posted was against stated purpose of a specific forum (as in something that is against the policies of the FA forum, SSBBW forum, Clubhouse, etc.) 

If you have a questions about why something was deleted, just take a breath and ask the moderator of the forum it was deleted from. We're happy to answer you and try to straighten out any misunderstandings. 

/moderator


----------



## Surlysomething (Jul 8, 2009)

James said:


> I think maybe what might be needed here is a bit of transparency of process to clear up any perceived wrongdoing or bias?
> 
> As a (relatively new) moderator I have access to the reported posts board. While I didn't witness the events as they occurred, a full record is present on that board. This includes a system-generated copy of the reported posts (both Kayrae's and mergirl's), the ensuing moderator discussion relating to them along with the rationale for the decisions that were taken in relation to them.
> 
> ...



This is the first post i've read about being a moderator that actually explained how the system works. I think people get up in arms a bit because they don't know what goes on behind scenes and any questions directed to a mod about a touchy situation _usually_ (imo opinion of course) result in replies from mods that come across _somewhat_ hostile. Or the stock answer of "it's Conrad's site" 

In my opinion of course.

Thank you for this, James.


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 8, 2009)

I think many people in this thread are playing the "you are playing the ____ card" card.

Things would be a lot fairer if we stopped playing cards (OF ANY KIND) against each other.

I don't think GD is playing any card. Playing for what? I think there has been a misunderstanding and genuinely hurt feelings and genuine confusion. You resolve that by explaining and extending courtesies, not by antagonizing them and accusing them of playing for special treatment. Mer and GD contribute a lot to Dims. Can't we treat them as friends?

Luckily, I think many people here have already taken an approach of explaining in a courteous and firm way. Thank you.


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 8, 2009)

Personally I am offended at the OP's tone and wish the Mods would take her behind the woodshed. But there is free speech. Here in a diverse population just as you have some in favor of something you will find there are some who don't agree. Just because you happen to belong to a population doesn't give you the right to demand everyone agrees to a particular agenda. So let me phrase it so the OP can understand. The ban will be over, Mer will come back. End of story. Quit trying to build hate.


----------



## kayrae (Jul 8, 2009)

Practice what you preach. 



snuggletiger said:


> *Personally I am offended at the OP's tone and wish the Mods would take her behind the woodshed*. But there is free speech. Here in a diverse population just as you have some in favor of something you will find there are some who don't agree. Just because you happen to belong to a population doesn't give you the right to demand everyone agrees to a particular agenda. So let me phrase it so the OP can understand. The ban will be over, Mer will come back. End of story. *Quit trying to build hate.*


----------



## bigsexy920 (Jul 8, 2009)

Some one Change the channel already.


----------



## goofy girl (Jul 8, 2009)

I thought Hyde Park was gone?


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Oh really I do despair. That is like saying it is ok for a comedian to tell racist or sexist jokes because as long as they are funny or there is humour involved it is ok. No it is not ok and I think the additional do you like tater tots or whatever was for people who were uncomfortable with the poll or wanted to give a rediculous answer to a rediculous poll.
> 
> Would it be ok for me to make a poll asking if all African Americans should be deported to Africa but if I threw in a wee addition at the bottom, do you like ice-cream then it's ok and we should all lighten up. NO I DON'T THINK SO, IT'S PREJUDICE, SMALL MINDED BIGOTRY. Just as bad as being against gay relationships or gay marriage and not considering people as equal. You are like a bad bernard manning and thankfully they are a dying breed of comedian these days



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 8, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> we were not falsley accusing anyone of being homophobic or playing any 'gay card' (how truly insulting) we had reasons to ask and suspect that there is institutionalised homophobia on here. There have been a few people saying things against gay relationships and gay marriage, ie HOMOPHOBIA. This includes a moderator referring to gay marriage as being icky, see link below
> 
> .http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=74
> 
> there is much more evidence if you wish to see it.



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 8, 2009)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh man this thread


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 8, 2009)

kind of miss being banned - i'd come up with something offensive right now but i've got nothing

no one's even seeding these kiddie porn torrents...what does this look like a holiday


----------



## Observer (Jul 8, 2009)

The ability to start new threads and post to old ones in Hyde Park is gone, but the forum still exists and can be accessed for reading purposes by anyone who has the link. 

I really think that its a stretch to say that anyone who thinks that marriage is a bi-sexual institution is homophobic. I know of numerous persons who could care less about sexual orientation and are fine with civil unions. Some of them also think that marriage is a religious sacrament and that the state shouldn't have gotten involved in defining them ever. Does hat make such persons homophobic? 

I believe I once argued here supporting the above view. I went so far as to say that civil unions should be the norm and include any couple, regardless of gender, that meet certain common law criteria - including specifically sharing the same bed, having kids, and/or a common checking account. I also supported allowing the benefits of joint filing tax treatment to be applied to all civil unions as just defined, while reserving the term marriage be reserved to civil unions sanctioned by religious groups. Since some churches recognize same sex marriages all a gay couple would have to do is have a ceremony in one. 

What is homophobic about that position? I think it is quite rational - and would truly separate church and state interests while putting a stop to something else - the "free ride" a lot of heterosexual men get living with a woman and enjoying all the privileges without the legal responsibility.


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 8, 2009)

because simply, it disallows two adults from something two other adults have, and for what reason exactly? it's not a 'why should they' it's 'why can't they'

it's also a majority deciding for a minority, why should you have a say at all? if i had a say in who shouldn't get married i've got a long list

anyway, ban marriage


----------



## Weeze (Jul 8, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha



Oh my god. He's actually like... got the right to laugh at that. What in hell...


----------



## Isa (Jul 8, 2009)

What I cannot understand is why this thread and the corresponding one in the Lounge have not been closed/locked? Mergirl and her friends feel as though she has been wronged, nothing is going to change that. The reasons behind her banning have been explained but they are not going to agree that her actions, not homophobia, caused it. 

IMO, as this thread goes on it is only going to cause more division in the community.


----------



## Teleute (Jul 8, 2009)

Isa said:


> What I cannot understand is why this thread and the corresponding one in the Lounge have not been closed/locked? Mergirl and her friends feel as though she has been wronged, nothing is going to change that. The reasons behind her banning have been explained but they are not going to agree that her actions, not homophobia, caused it.
> 
> IMO, as this thread goes on it is only going to cause more division in the community.



I suspect it's because that would be opportunity for a lot more trouble on the lines of "the mods are silencing us!" It'll likely keep things much calmer if the threads are allowed to die down naturally, although it's probably frustrating for the mods.

Also, I kind of resent the sentiment that "Team Mergirl" all think that this is based in homophobia and refuse to listen to reason. I don't believe it was, and I'm grateful the mods have explained their reasons for the ban as it makes things clearer for me as a forum poster. I do think two weeks is a bit harsh for the infraction, but I'm hardly screaming "homophobia" just because I'm her friend.


----------



## Spanky (Jul 8, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> anyway, ban marriage



No! NO! 

If we ban marriage then my wife gets half of everything I own. I mean she has all of it now.......but at least I know where it is.....and I can at least go and look at it.....if I ask........nicely.


----------



## msbard90 (Jul 8, 2009)

Sandie S-R said:


> It is very important to understand that if a post of yours gets deleted, it is *not personal*, and most definitely not because the things you say "aren't as important" as your peers.
> 
> If a post gets deleted it is for one of the following reasons:
> 
> ...



Thank you for the explanation, Sandie. I was more describing the fact that even though one's post may not belong in a certain thread etc.... it can be disheartening to some to see their post deleted. Some people may take things more to heart than others. but thanks for taking the time to look at the post 

much love xoxo
much love,
Melissa


----------



## Hathor (Jul 9, 2009)

Wow....I've never seen the term "homophobe" thrown around so much in an online discussion in a long time.


----------



## Carrie (Jul 9, 2009)

Hathor said:


> Wow....I've never seen the term "homophobe" thrown around so much in an online discussion in a long time.


I'm surprised this extensive and heated discussion has reached this point with nary a Hitler reference. This *is* the internet, no?


----------



## mango (Jul 9, 2009)

Carrie said:


> I'm surprised this extensive and heated discussion has reached this point with nary a Hitler reference. This *is* the internet, no?



*
Hitler enraged on Prop 8 getting up in CA



OK.. now this is starting to get a little ridickulus....


*


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Jul 9, 2009)

snuggletiger said:


> Personally I am offended at the OP's tone and wish the Mods would take her behind the woodshed. But there is free speech. Here in a diverse population just as you have some in favor of something you will find there are some who don't agree. Just because you happen to belong to a population doesn't give you the right to demand everyone agrees to a particular agenda. So let me phrase it so the OP can understand. The ban will be over, Mer will come back. End of story. Quit trying to build hate.


I'm not trying to build hate, quit telling me what I'm doing. For your information Mer might not be back because at this point she is hurt and disappointed at all of the people who have posted with their own form of hate. If she goes then I go to so you wont need any 'wood shed'. 

I will say this for the LAST TIME, Mergirl was not banned for saying anyone was homophobic and all the people who have jumped on the band wagon for their own personal agendas should keep in mind that dimensions is a community. Communities are made up of all sorts of people and we are allowed to have differences of opinion. I am not saying because we are gay you should agree with us. However your opinion should not impress upon anyone that being gay is wrong or that we are less than and therefore our opinions are not valid. No special treatment asked for.

Mergirl was NOT telling anyone F**K you on the blah blah thread, she was sounding off and saying FU but come to our party, that is not telling someone in particular to F off. 

Oh and why was my tone cosidered offensive? I am not out to offend anyone, I was defending my girlfriend who has been unfairly offended my many


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 9, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> I'm not trying to build hate, quit telling me what I'm doing. For your information Mer might not be back because at this point she is hurt and disappointed at all of the people who have posted with their own form of hate. If she goes then I go to so you wont need any 'wood shed'.



I think she handled this situation the wrong way, but sometimes that happens when you're really upset. That being said, I hope she does come back, I have enjoyed reading her posts a great deal (including ones I didn't agree with).


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 9, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> FWIW, short answer to a very spiteful question - NO! The mods here are about as homophobic as they are sexist, racist, ageist or sizeist. Find a more even-handed, restrained and tolerant group of Mods anywhere on the web and I'll kiss my own hairy ass. I frequent a number of sites that deal with controversial to toxic issues. The mods here generally make Andy of Mayberry look like the fecking *Gestapo*. Some of us have seen a little too well what that word _really_ means. Please try to be a little more discrete with it. JMO.





Carrie said:


> I'm surprised this extensive and heated discussion has reached this point with nary a Hitler reference. This *is* the internet, no?



What, we can't count my post (#10, see above) early in this thread as at least an oblique reference? :doh:


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 9, 2009)

Spanky said:


> No! NO!
> 
> If we ban marriage then my wife gets half of everything I own. I mean she has all of it now.......but at least I know where it is.....and I can at least go and look at it.....if I ask........nicely.



Think of it as getting half your stuff back fair and square.


----------



## FatAndProud (Jul 9, 2009)

snuggletiger said:


> Think of it as getting half your stuff back fair and square.



the outrage of her getting banned is equivalent to MJ's death. lol amazing. i wonder what she did. such a badass


----------



## MatthewB (Jul 9, 2009)

Carrie said:


> I'm surprised this extensive and heated discussion has reached this point with nary a Hitler reference. This *is* the internet, no?


*Godwin's Law* has now been invoked. Consider us all predictable.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jul 9, 2009)

This thread is dying a slow, painful death.

I wish someone would just shoot it in the head and be done with it.


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 9, 2009)

FatAndProud said:


> the outrage of her getting banned is equivalent to MJ's death. lol amazing. i wonder what she did. such a badass



Oh yes we need a Larry King interview to have former celebs talk about how her getting banned has ruined their lives and made them unable to drink a starbuck frappachino. Quick can someone link Mer's ban, MJ's death, the JFK Assassination, and the Knights Templar to some vast Masonic Conspiracy foreseen by Nostradamus?


----------



## MisterGuy (Jul 9, 2009)

What's a homa, and why are the mods afraid of it?


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 9, 2009)

snuggletiger said:


> Oh yes we need a Larry King interview to have former celebs talk about how her getting banned has ruined their lives and made them unable to drink a starbuck frappachino. Quick can someone link Mer's ban, MJ's death, the JFK Assassination, and the Knights Templar to some vast Masonic Conspiracy foreseen by Nostradamus?



Gladly. Mer is a Scot, the SS of the Knights Templar. Conrad is of Swiss heritage. Their banks mask the vast wealth of the Mason's which JFK threatened to expose. Silencing Mer allows the Masons to continue recklessly insinuating High Fructose Corn Syrup into every orifice of our daily lives. Nostradumbass referenced this in his infamous umpteenth quatrain re the fallacious death of Michael Jackson.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 9, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> What's a homa, and why are the mods afraid of it?



I just assumed it was a typo and she meant Houma, as in Louisiana, which is in fact a kind of scary place, especially if you're a vegetarian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houma,_Louisiana

And isn't it a little early for me to be drinking on a Thursday?


----------



## Spanky (Jul 9, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> And isn't it a little early for me to be drinking on a Thursday?



NO! In fact, it makes you quite funny. Have another on me. It is after 5PM somewhere anyway. Hell, it is Friday somewhere now. 

Live it up. For we shall die of GolobialH12012WarmingN1AsteroidCO2MeteriorIceAge any day now.


----------



## Carrie (Jul 9, 2009)

MatthewB said:


> *Godwin's Law* has now been invoked. Consider us all predictable.


Nope, Godwin's Law only counts when someone compares someone to Hitler in genuine hyperbolic outrage, not when someone observes in surprise that this phenomenon has not yet occurred.


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 9, 2009)

ummm Someone channelled the spirit of Adolph and hence that is what led to the thread originating because someone deviated from someone's particular agenda and wants?


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jul 9, 2009)

This thread is just overboard. I think the person who started it is overreacting. The moderators have tried to be fair to all people on the board. 

Raising the specter of homophobia and identity politics over something so insignificant only serves to cause confusion and hard feelings. What I would suggest is approaching the moderator to find out the truth instead.


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 9, 2009)

Very true but then the OP couldn't not deliver such eloquent words of hate, and homophobia and turn this into a soapbox derby. For shame denying her the opportunity to spread, hatred and bigotry and smear a mod.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 9, 2009)

Carrie said:


> Nope, Godwin's Law only counts when someone compares someone to Hitler in genuine hyperbolic outrage, not when someone observes in surprise that this phenomenon has not yet occurred.



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is a humorous observation coined by Mike Godwin in 1990, and which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3]

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. *The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. *It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.


I hope to Godwin that clears things up?  We now return to our regularly scheduled dust-up.


----------



## kayrae (Jul 9, 2009)

It's obvious that this is a case of miscommunication. It's quite unfair to treat Mer and GD's hurt feelings with such vitriol however. This thread might be an over-reaction and Mer's last conduct might not be one of her best, but I am thoroughly disheartened at how this whole debacle is playing itself out.

FWIW, I don't think the mods are homophobic. I don't think mergirl and GD are unreasonable. It's a matter of miscommunication. The mods have already addressed the issue. I'd like to see a little kindness towards mergirl and GD. She's already banned. I don't see the point in antagonizing both of them even further.

Mods and mergirl, my sincerest apologies for posting a comment that got taken out of context. We were having quite a fun time having our little Queer Fat Party. I'll see you in 2 weeks, mergirl...


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 9, 2009)

Hitler was probably gay. :bow:


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 9, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Hitler was probably gay. :bow:



Really? 'Cuz I kinda suspect he was a closeted FA.  All that unexpressed libido can make a dude do some cr-aaa-zy shit.


----------



## William (Jul 9, 2009)

Hi Kayrae

Up to the point where Mer lost control I think that she was being treated very weirdly.

William




kayrae said:


> It's obvious that this is a case of miscommunication. It's quite unfair to treat Mer and GD's hurt feelings with such vitriol however. This thread might be an over-reaction and Mer's last conduct might not be one of her best, but I am thoroughly disheartened at how this whole debacle is playing itself out.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think the mods are homophobic. I don't think mergirl and GD are unreasonable. It's a matter of miscommunication. The mods have already addressed the issue. I'd like to see a little kindness towards mergirl and GD. She's already banned. I don't see the point in antagonizing both of them even further.
> 
> Mods and mergirl, my sincerest apologies for posting a comment that got taken out of context. We were having quite a fun time having our little Queer Fat Party. I'll see you in 2 weeks, mergirl...


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 9, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Really? 'Cuz I kinda suspect he was a closeted FA.  All that unexpressed libido can make a dude do some cr-aaa-zy shit.



OK you win that was fuckin' funny!


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jul 9, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> I'm not trying to build hate, quit telling me what I'm doing. For your information Mer might not be back because at this point she is hurt and disappointed at all of the people who have posted with their own form of hate. If she goes then I go to so you wont need any 'wood shed'.
> 
> I will say this for the LAST TIME, Mergirl was not banned for saying anyone was homophobic and all the people who have jumped on the band wagon for their own personal agendas should keep in mind that dimensions is a community. Communities are made up of all sorts of people and we are allowed to have differences of opinion. I am not saying because we are gay you should agree with us. However your opinion should not impress upon anyone that being gay is wrong or that we are less than and therefore our opinions are not valid. No special treatment asked for.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry...this is *blatantly* untrue. I saw mergirl's original post. She called Dims' mods (which includes me, btw) old and out of touch, homophobic, and her "fuck you"s were all over the place. And when you're spending an entire post complaining about how you were moderated, WHO ELSE could "fuck you" be directed at? All of that constitutes a blatant personal attack. I hear moderators are people, too, so yeah...personal attack applies.


----------



## NoWayOut (Jul 9, 2009)

Quite honestly, I've been on other sites where the moderators are complete idiots. On those sites, they let people call each other out, insults were thrown around, stupid threads were abundant, etc.

This place isn't like that. I think the mods do a very good job here. And I have to say, I don't know what happened here, but if the moderators' side of the story is true, mergirl probably deserved to get banned. Again, that's an if. I don't know what's true and what isn't.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Jul 9, 2009)

William said:


> Hi Kayrae
> 
> Up to the point where Mer lost control I think that she was being treated very weirdly.
> 
> William



And you base this on what?? Your express inside knowledge of what we were discussing in the private moderators forum regarding this situation??

You known William, this is the kind of crap that continues to stir up shit and make things worse - not better.


----------



## William (Jul 9, 2009)

Hi Sandie

The way the Moderator handled her original post, a sentiment which was again displayed by the last post that was on this thread. There have been people asking questions on this thread and what Dimensions has given them back is trash talk.

William




Sandie S-R said:


> And you base this on what?? Your express inside knowledge of what we were discussing in the private moderators forum regarding this situation??
> 
> You known William, this is the kind of crap that continues to stir up shit and make things worse - not better.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 9, 2009)

William said:


> Hi Sandie
> 
> The way the Moderator handled her original post, a sentiment which was again displayed by the last post that was on this thread. There have been people asking questions on this thread and what Dimensions has given them back is trash talk.
> 
> William



The moderator temporarily removed the post because someone else said something about keeping the gay stuff on the gay board. The OP knew she was joking but apparently lots of other people didn't. 

Removing the post then relocating it to the lounge should have avoided this whole shit-storm. Unfortunately it didn't. 


I have to say in my experience the moderators have always treated me completely fairly, and I've had many of my posts edited and even deleted.


----------



## William (Jul 9, 2009)

For the record I do not think any of my posted have been deleted, I did get one Weight Gain Forum Rule Violation because I came in the room from a link and did not realize what room I was in.

I guess the moderator made the wrong move (not a pun). I have never noticed a move like that before, but I have notice the regular trash talk that anyone who is not Dimension's PC receives.

The post you are talking about was not on this thread, I was talking about another.

William




Ella Bella said:


> The moderator temporarily removed the post because someone else said something about keeping the gay stuff on the gay board. The OP knew she was joking but apparently lots of other people didn't.
> 
> Removing the post then relocating it to the lounge should have avoided this whole shit-storm. Unfortunately it didn't.
> 
> ...


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 9, 2009)

Well maybe you should go back and read the post of yours that I responded to, because it certainly seemed to me like you were talking about this thread and the post being discussed in this thread. 

The whole trash talk/victim/martyr thing gets kinda old after a while IMO.




William said:


> For the record I do not think any of my posted have been deleted, I did get one Weight Gain Forum Rule Violation because I came in the room from a link and did not realize what room I was in.
> 
> I guess the moderator made the wrong move (not a pun). I have never noticed a move like that before, but I have notice the regular trash talk that anyone who is not Dimension's PC receives.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mathias (Jul 9, 2009)

William, this "Us vs them" crap isn't addressing any problems within Dimensions. All it does is create an unnecessary divide within the community that was never there to begin with and, like Sandie said makes things worse.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Jul 10, 2009)

I honestly have no idea what happened between Mer, GD and the mods.. all I know is that threads like this are stupid. If you have a concern over a banning or infraction, PM a mod or have someone else do it for you so you can get a clear answer.. drawing tons of attention to yourself and making accusations doesn't help anyone and stirs up drama that frankly does not need stirrin'


----------



## SocialbFly (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> For the record I do not think any of my posted have been deleted, I did get one Weight Gain Forum Rule Violation because I came in the room from a link and did not realize what room I was in.
> 
> I guess the moderator made the wrong move (not a pun). I have never noticed a move like that before, but I have notice the regular trash talk that anyone who is not Dimension's PC receives.
> 
> ...



It is obvious to me, you need to have the last word...so can you have the last word that ISN'T A CUTDOWN, OR A BITCH, OR A WHINE, and then, let it the hell go....

enough is enough, this isnt helping at all...

what happened is between the mods and mer and gd....let it go please.


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

OK SB

I just wish people were told to let it go before a lot of things were said in this thread, but *that never* happens to some people. Just keep on and continue to classify anything that is not Dimensions PC as a A BITCH OR WHINE.

William







SocialbFly said:


> It is obvious to me, you need to have the last word...so can you have the last word that ISN'T A CUTDOWN, OR A BITCH, OR A WHINE, and then, let it the hell go....
> 
> enough is enough, this isnt helping at all...
> 
> what happened is between the mods and mer and gd....let it go please.


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> OK SB
> 
> I just wish people were told to let it go before a lot of things were said in this thread, but *that never* happens to some people. Just keep on and continue to classify anything that is not Dimensions PC as a A BITCH OR WHINE.
> 
> William



You know what, William? You're absolutely right. There is a clique. It's called _everyone but you_. In order to join it, you have to not whine and bitch about an imagined group of privelidged elites, because there aren't any.

(Actually, you probably won't pick up the sarcasm in that previous paragraph, so I'm taking the time to point it out to you.)

Actually, it's probably not a bad idea to stop the bitching and whining anyways. Not because there is some group that you're exposing, but because at this point you're just being incredibly fucking annoying and derailing the thread- which is something that you accuse these others of doing.


----------



## Carrie (Jul 10, 2009)

Blackjack said:


> You know what, William? You're absolutely right. There is a clique. It's called _everyone but you_. In order to join it, you have to not whine and bitch about an imagined group of privelidged elites, because there aren't any.
> 
> (Actually, you probably won't pick up the sarcasm in that previous paragraph, so I'm taking the time to point it out to you.)
> 
> Actually, it's probably not a bad idea to stop the bitching and whining anyways. Not because there is some group that you're exposing, but because at this point you're just being incredibly fucking annoying and derailing the thread- which is something that you accuse these others of doing.


You would say that, Beej, as a member of the supersecret Dimensions P.C. clique. 


p.s. The secret handshake and password have been changed. The eagle flies at midnight.


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

People use sarcasm because they have nothing better to use to argue their point.

All of the groups of people on the fringe of Dimensions have at one time spoken up for themselves and then were savagely attacked, this incident is no different. People were piling trash talk on this topic all night, yet here you are saying will all are equal.

William 



Blackjack said:


> You know what, William? You're absolutely right. There is a clique. It's called _everyone but you_. In order to join it, you have to not whine and bitch about an imagined group of privelidged elites, because there aren't any.
> 
> (Actually, you probably won't pick up the sarcasm in that previous paragraph, so I'm taking the time to point it out to you.)
> 
> Actually, it's probably not a bad idea to stop the bitching and whining anyways. Not because there is some group that you're exposing, but because at this point you're just being incredibly fucking annoying and derailing the thread- which is something that you accuse these others of doing.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> OK SB
> 
> I just wish people were told to let it go before a lot of things were said in this thread, but *that never* happens to some people. Just keep on and continue to classify anything that is not Dimensions PC as a A BITCH OR WHINE.
> 
> William



Two questions.


What is Dimensions PC
If you think this place is ran so crappy, why do you continue to post here?


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> People use sarcasm because they have nothing better to use to argue their point.



That's not at all true. I'm using sarcasm here because it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to get you to understand.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> OK SB
> 
> I just wish people were told to let it go before a lot of things were said in this thread, but *that never* happens to some people. Just keep on and continue to classify anything that is not Dimensions PC as a A BITCH OR WHINE.
> 
> William



So what exactly is Dimensions PC? You have said it a lot in this thread but don't say exactly what it is. You talk in too many circles William, it gets hard for people to follow after a while.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> OK SB
> 
> I just wish people were told to let it go before a lot of things were said in this thread, but *that never* happens to some people. Just keep on and continue to classify anything that is not Dimensions PC as a A BITCH OR WHINE.
> 
> William



double post, what I get for posting at work!


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> People use sarcasm because they have nothing better to use to argue their point.
> 
> All of the groups of people on the fringe of Dimensions have at one time spoken up for themselves and then were savagely attacked, this incident is no different. People were piling trash talk on this topic all night, yet here you are saying will all are equal.
> 
> William



OK, here's a point for you to ponder William. These alleged privileged groups you refer to actually do exist, in a sense. Humans are social creatures. We form social networks to share resources and provide support for one another. It's the survival mechanism that compelled us to invent spoken language, tribes, cities, nations, bashes, etc.. If certain advantages did not accrue to those who bond together for shared purposes, if "lone wolves" had a survival advantage over packs, maybe there'd be something to be said for your recurring lamentations. 

As it is though nobody belongs to every group, nor should we. While I can't imagine anyone would assert I am a member of the "in" crowd or cool kids I have friends here whose sensibilities are a good fit for me. That may not afford me the same "status" as belonging to some of the larger or more dominant groups but it gets me what I want without giving up too much of what counts for me. I don't begrudge them whatever power or privilege you perceive them to have because I have what I consider important. 

A level playing field is a myth, William. Some will always have more of some things than others. Some communities are more successful than others and can therefore be more selective about the qualities they deem necessary for membership. Find a winnable game worth playing for yourself, William and get this silly "fairness" monkey off your back. Also, see my Epictetus siggy below. :bow:

And FWIW I sincerely hope Mer chooses to return and be welcomed back with open arms. All us old farts will be gone soon enough anyway.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jul 10, 2009)

Now. Let's see if anything is done about these *blatant* personal attacks.

Hmmm....


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 10, 2009)

I read these posts and keep thinking of the MWA MWA MWA MWA routine for an adult in a Peanuts Cartoon. So far we have one miffed lady accusing the world of a conspiracy against her because someone didn't like what someone said. Next we have the emergence of clickism. 
In short folks its forced consumption of rainbow skittles and secret clubs.


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

Hi Ella

I would say that BBW/FA and Regaional Events topics are the most approved with feeding/gaining/Foodie being next. The Pay-Area is a little further from the middle. After that groups of people are on their own. If they remain invisible then everything is fine, if they question something then the wagons are circled and it is war.

BHMs, FFAs, Thin Women, Smaller BBWs have all experienced this at some time and the Queer community is no different.

William 




Ella Bella said:


> So what exactly is Dimensions PC? You have said it a lot in this thread but don't say exactly what it is. You talk in too many circles William, it gets hard for people to follow after a while.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jul 10, 2009)

Blackjack said:


> That's not at all true. I'm using sarcasm here because it's a hell of a lot easier than trying get anything through your thick skull.



How is any of what you've just said to William *not* a personal attack, Blackjack? So far you've name-called, patronized, and ... oh, let's see ... no, that just about sums it up. Is it OK for you to do it because you don't like William, and how he responds to criticism? Funny thing, while I may not always agree with William, I don't think I've ever seen him directly name-call *or* patronize. He generally contains his comments to how he feels, rather than how annoying or stupid he thinks someone else is.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jul 10, 2009)

duplicate.....


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 10, 2009)

triplicate and an extra carbon copy for the boys


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 10, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> How is any of what you've just said to William *not* a personal attack, Blackjack? So far you've name-called, patronized, and ... oh, let's see ... no, that just about sums it up. Is it OK for you to do it because you don't like William, and how he responds to criticism? Funny thing, while I may not always agree with William, I don't think I've ever seen him directly name-call *or* patronize. He generally contains his comments to how he feels, rather than how annoying or stupid he thinks someone else is.



I'm not saying that it isn't a personal attack, and I'm not saying it's alright, but I will say that it felt damn good to vent like that.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> Hi Sandie
> 
> The way the Moderator handled her original post, a sentiment which was again displayed by the last post that was on this thread. There have been people asking questions on this thread and what Dimensions has given them back is trash talk.
> 
> William



I normally do not get into these things because if I wanna see drama I turn on the t.v...I do have to comment on this post tho..I went through and reread all of the post in this topic..Not once have I seen trash talk from dimensions mods or owner..As a matter of fact a couple of the mods did discuss it but didn't get into the particulars of what went on behind the scenes..I personally do not think it is any of our business how this was handled..It was between Mer and mod A...Not the community as a whole..

So now my question..Why are you stirring the pot? What do you get out of it? I am trying to understand where you are coming from..


----------



## mossystate (Jul 10, 2009)

Blackjack said:


> I'm not saying that it isn't a personal attack, and I'm not saying it's alright, but I will say that it felt damn good to vent like that.



A few weeks ago I enjoyed an infraction and a ' point ' in my naughty bucket. Wanna compare notes?


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 10, 2009)

mossystate said:


> A few weeks ago I enjoyed an infraction and a ' point ' in my naughty bucket. Wanna compare notes?



Is this that game "you show me yours I'll show you mine"?


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

Ok, I give up. You are still talking in circles, and I can only believe that it's intentional. Just come out and say whatever it is that you're saying William. How do you expect something to be addressed and fixed (if its broken) if you're not saying things exactly as they should be said. Kinda like my kid telling me they hurt but not telling me where. I can't make it better if I don't know what needs my attention. Neither can Dimensions.



William said:


> Hi Ella
> 
> I would say that BBW/FA and Regaional Events topics are the most approved with feeding/gaining/Foodie being next. The Pay-Area is a little further from the middle. After that groups of people are on their own. If they remain invisible then everything is fine, if they question something then the wagons are circled and it is war.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tina (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> People use sarcasm because they have nothing better to use to argue their point.



Said as just me, not a mod: Not true, actually. Often people use sarcasm because they view the recipient of their words as not being worth the fruitless, useless time and trouble. And I mean this in general. If it applies to you, then it applies, but I'm talking from personal experience, and I've used sarcasm for that very reason -- might as well amuse oneself with the post, as reasonable words would actually be lost on the person to whom they are directed.

Uh, carry on... :blink:


----------



## Rowan (Jul 10, 2009)

Wow..this thread is still going...in circle number 942...amazing.


----------



## butch (Jul 10, 2009)

You know what makes me sad about this thread? The fact that the posts in this thread, over the course of the thread's lifespan, probably outnumber the posts in the GLBTQ forum over the same time period by 10:1.

I guess the Pollyanna in me wishes those of you investing time and effort in this thread would spend some of that time and effort posting something positive, thoughtful, or cheeky over in the GLBTQ forum. Regardless of your sexuality or gender expression, you're welcome there anytime.


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

Hi Ella

I do not have the answers for all these things, but I know how people deserve to be treated and the behavior in this thread is not acceptable and the response to the to the issues of the other groups that I mentioned the behavior of the core of Dimensions was not appropriate either. 

What does it matter since everyone not on the fringe of Dimensions seems to think that social interaction at Dimensions is perfect and I am out of my mind.

William




Ella Bella said:


> Ok, I give up. You are still talking in circles, and I can only believe that it's intentional. Just come out and say whatever it is that you're saying William. How do you expect something to be addressed and fixed (if its broken) if you're not saying things exactly as they should be said. Kinda like my kid telling me they hurt but not telling me where. I can't make it better if I don't know what needs my attention. Neither can Dimensions.


----------



## Spanky (Jul 10, 2009)

butch said:


> You know what makes me sad about this thread? The fact that the posts in this thread, over the course of the thread's lifespan, probably outnumber the posts in the GLBTQ forum over the same time period by 10:1.
> 
> I guess the Pollyanna in me wishes those of you investing time and effort in this thread would spend some of that time and effort posting something positive, thoughtful, or cheeky over in the GLBTQ forum. Regardless of your sexuality or gender expression, you're welcome there anytime.



Butch, 

I, for one, never thought that these new divided up forums were for all to come in and enjoy. Maybe that is my misconception. Whether the BBW Forum or the GLBTQ Forum or the BHM Forum, I assumed these were places for those to congregate with others of like mind or lifestyle. I am not gay, so maybe I felt I had nothing to add or would be sticking my outsider person into a place where GLBTQ people like to go and be others like them. I am not a BHM nor a BBW, so again, my posts might not have much weight in those forums. 

I figured that we all would mingle in the more open forums like Lounge, Main and Weight, Food, etc. More like the common rooms. Honestly, until mer was inviting us over, I would have never considered going. I would have felt like an invader. Maybe I would be still considered as such by some anyway. 

When the divisions at Dims started, I was pretty much silently against them. Now that we have them, maybe the walls need to be kept low. Maybe invites are needed. Open houses or something. Like the way mer did it. IRL, I never enter someone's home without being invited. 

:bow:,

Spanky


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

Hi 

The trash talk was not from the Mods, just the regulars and the worst one was deleted super quickly by the Mods. The regulars are certainly not trying to heal this wound, rather they are ripping it open and burning bridges.

I do think how the Mods operate is our concern, the fringe groups can and have been over-run by the majority on Dimensions many times.

I am off to enjoy the weekend, asking people to respect others should not take this much debating 

William



BubbleButtBabe said:


> I normally do not get into these things because if I wanna see drama I turn on the t.v...I do have to comment on this post tho..I went through and reread all of the post in this topic..Not once have I seen trash talk from dimensions mods or owner..As a matter of fact a couple of the mods did discuss it but didn't get into the particulars of what went on behind the scenes..I personally do not think it is any of our business how this was handled..It was between Mer and mod A...Not the community as a whole..
> 
> So now my question..Why are you stirring the pot? What do you get out of it? I am trying to understand where you are coming from..


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 10, 2009)

I am with the previous poster I feel all these separate boards are great in theory for people of a particular group to congregate but in a way it makes me feel like its all just divide and conquer. If you dont' belong to this particular group go find another. Oh well. Thats how it goes but its nice to have an invitation.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 10, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> How is any of what you've just said to William *not* a personal attack, Blackjack? So far you've name-called, patronized, and ... oh, let's see ... no, that just about sums it up. Is it OK for you to do it because you don't like William, and how he responds to criticism? Funny thing, while I may not always agree with William, I don't think I've ever seen him directly name-call *or* patronize. He generally contains his comments to how he feels, rather than how annoying or stupid he thinks someone else is.



But they are all personal attacks - so why aren't they being moderated??? Very good question. I've seen many cluster fucks on this board, and if the Mods think you deserve it  it continues until they think you've had enough. Been there, no T-shirt.

William is just the flavor of the week. Hot fun in the summertime huh kids?


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jul 10, 2009)

...or until one of us is both here AND sees the offending post, if no one has yet. It's been said before, but apparently reiteration is needed. 

1) We have lives. I personally just got home from work. We're not always at our computers.
2) We don't always see the offending posts. If people report it, it gets taken care of faster because we see it sooner.


----------



## James (Jul 10, 2009)

When a post gets reported, moderators act on it. When a post gets missed by a mod and is not reported by anyone then it naturally remains unedited. There is no conspiracy here. No cliques. No favorites. There is a system and a process and when that system gets used properly then process is followed. Someone reported Blackjack's post and it is now being discussed in the mod forum before a decision is taken. This is exactly the same process that was followed when both kayrae and mergirl's posts were reported. 

Neither actions, nor decisions are taken in a vacuum. Severity of reported transgressions and poster transgression history (which mods can see on individual user profiles) are taken into account and discussed prior to taking an action.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 10, 2009)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> ...or until one of us is both here AND sees the offending post, if no one has yet. It's been said before, but apparently reiteration is needed.
> 
> 1) We have lives. I personally just got home from work. We're not always at our computers.
> 2) We don't always see the offending posts. If people report it, it gets taken care of faster because we see it sooner.



Now c'mon BBM, you may not want to see it the way I do that in and of itself does not mean it doesn't happen. I have a vivid memory about a certain "Karma" thread that was left to degenerate for quite some time.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 10, 2009)

James said:


> poster transgression history (which mods can see on individual user profiles) are taken into account and discussed prior to taking an action.



And that's the point exactly. If a poster isn't liked they get harsher treatment.


----------



## kayrae (Jul 10, 2009)

Spanky, you make a really good point. Quite frankly, I *love love love* the newly opened BBW forum. Because the mods are moving BBW-relevant threads there, I am actually seeing old topics that were buried in all the other forums. Also, because it's a protected space, I feel that the conversations that we have in the BBW forum encourages me to participate more. And I'm saying this as a poster who already posts excessively. I've already seen BBW lurkers come out of the woodwork, and that's awesome! 



Spanky said:


> Butch,
> 
> I, for one, never thought that these new divided up forums were for all to come in and enjoy. Maybe that is my misconception. Whether the BBW Forum or the GLBTQ Forum or the BHM Forum, I assumed these were places for those to congregate with others of like mind or lifestyle. I am not gay, so maybe I felt I had nothing to add or would be sticking my outsider person into a place where GLBTQ people like to go and be others like them. I am not a BHM nor a BBW, so again, my posts might not have much weight in those forums.
> 
> ...


----------



## James (Jul 10, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> And that's the point exactly. If a poster isn't liked they get harsher treatment.



Its not a question of a user being liked or disliked. At least, I've never understood it to work like that in the few months that I've been doing it. What we see is a record of the nature of the previous transgressions, the severity of the transgressions and the duration and status of any bans/infractions issued. The behavior of a poster in relation to forum rules is paramount and when rules are broken, something will usually happen (even if it is just a PM to inform a first-time offender that they've broken a minor rule). Given the widespread nature of dims across multiple forums, absolute quantitative moderating is nigh-on impossible. Especially when one considers that the moderators are all volunteers and often have other jobs or responsibilities that extend outside of dims. I think that once you consider all those things, the current situation represents the fairest and 'least imperfect' set up available.


----------



## Teleute (Jul 10, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> And that's the point exactly. If a poster isn't liked they get harsher treatment.



That doesn't sound like "if they're not liked" so much as "if they've been reported 12 times in the last month", no? I suppose it could come out the same way if people just reported posters they didn't like for no real reason, but that seems... incredibly petty to me.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 10, 2009)

James, as far as I can see you bend over backwards to be faire to everyone as do most of the Mods. But there are times, I'm sure all Mods reach the end of their rope at times. But things have happened (before you were a Mod) that was "let" happen. That was my point.






James said:


> Its not a question of a user being liked or disliked. At least, I've never understood it to work like that in the few months that I've been doing it. What we see is a record of the nature of the previous transgressions, the severity of the transgressions and the duration and status of any bans/infractions issued. The behavior of a poster in relation to forum rules is paramount and when rules are broken, something will usually happen (even if it is just a PM to inform a first-time offender that they've broken a rule). Given the widespread nature of dims across multiple forums, absolute quantitative moderating is nigh-on impossible. Especially when one considers that the moderators are all volunteers and often have other jobs or responsibilities that extend outside of dims. I think that once you consider all those things, the current situation represents the fairest and 'least imperfect' set up available.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 10, 2009)

Teleute said:


> That doesn't sound like "if they're not liked" so much as "if they've been reported 12 times in the last month", no? I suppose it could come out the same way if people just reported posters they didn't like for no real reason, but that seems... incredibly petty to me.




Well, there is a ton of incredibly petty stuff that goes on here. But the good outweighs the bad - most of the time.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

But you're the one hurling the accusations, maybe you should have answers to the questions you're bound to get when you say things like you did.





William said:


> Hi Ella
> 
> I do not have the answers for all these things, but I know how people deserve to be treated and the behavior in this thread is not acceptable and the response to the to the issues of the other groups that I mentioned the behavior of the core of Dimensions was not appropriate either.
> 
> ...


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> But they are all personal attacks - so why aren't they being moderated??? Very good question. I've seen many cluster fucks on this board, and if the Mods think you deserve it  it continues until they think you've had enough. Been there, no T-shirt.
> 
> William is just the flavor of the week. Hot fun in the summertime huh kids?



Including the ones you've been a participant of Sandie? Or the ones where you post something with seemingly no other purpose than to antagonize?

Lets not do the pot meet kettle thing. Please?

I have been around quite some time and I haven't seen moderators allow someone to be ganged up on. As a matter of fact I've seen them close many threads because it looked like someone was being ganged up on.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> And that's the point exactly. If a poster isn't liked they get harsher treatment.




The moderators have all seemed pretty fair, I may not agree with all of their decisions but I haven't seen them treat one person any better than they did another.


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

Hi Ella

The lack of a answer does not invalidate the question, just about every fringe group on Dimensions has had to do time on the "Dimension's inquisition table". That is not a accusations, that is a fact. I ask these questions because they exist. 

William



Ella Bella said:


> But you're the one hurling the accusations, maybe you should have answers to the questions you're bound to get when you say things like you did.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

You made a statement William, you didn't ask a question.
What do you consider a fringe group? 




William said:


> Hi Ella
> 
> The lack of a answer does not invalidate the question, just about every fringe group on Dimensions has had to do time on the "Dimension's inquisition table". I ask these questions because they exist.
> 
> William


----------



## Wild Zero (Jul 10, 2009)

Hey look kids! There's Big Ben, there's Parliment


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

I have answered that, all the groups that been publically stoned by the Dimension's Majority. I would include BHMs, FFAs, Thin Women, Smaller BBWs and the the Queer community. There may be others At one time or another all these groups have been on the outs with Dimensions,.

Why do you ask?

William





Ella Bella said:


> You made a statement William, you didn't ask a question.
> What do you consider a fringe group?


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 10, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Including the ones you've been a participant of Sandie? Or the ones where you post something with seemingly no other purpose than to antagonize?
> 
> Lets not do the pot meet kettle thing. Please?
> 
> I have been around quite some time and I haven't seen moderators allow someone to be ganged up on. As a matter of fact I've seen them close many threads because it looked like someone was being ganged up on.



If I was going to exclude myself I would have Ella. Let's stop the putting words in my mouth thing OK?

I have admitted many times to bating people, but contrary to what some think, I haven't done that in a long long time. Usually what I post, I mean, about 99% of the time.

And yes I have seen - and been at the bottom of - many dog piles here. But lets not make this thread about me - please.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> I have answered that, all the groups that been publically stoned by the Dimension's Majority. I would include BHMs, FFAs, Thin Women, Smaller BBWs and the the Queer community. There may be others At one time or another all these groups have been on the outs with Dimensions,.
> 
> Why do you ask?
> 
> William



Because you don't make sense 

You just pretty much named all of Dimensions. What's left? 
What is it that Dimensions supposedly does to those groups of people? Other than give them a place to congregate and discuss issues with like minded people?

You're wanting something to be there when its really not. Like the boy who cried wolf, you do it too much and when it really happens, no one is going to believe you.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jul 10, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> The moderators have all seemed pretty fair, I may not agree with all of their decisions but I haven't seen them treat one person any better than they did another.



Honestly, because you've never been at the receiving end of it. Granted I haven't seen this happen in a while but iut happens.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> If I was going to exclude myself I would have Ella. Let's stop the putting words in my mouth thing OK?
> 
> I have admitted many times to bating people, but contrary to what some think, I haven't done that in a long long time. Usually what I post, I mean, about 99% of the time.
> 
> And yes I have seen - and been at the bottom of - many dog piles here. But lets not make this thread about me - please.




Just making sure you are including yourself, there's too much they are the bad guy picking on me going on in this thread. No one is perfect, everyone has off days, but like you said the good outweighs the bad.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 10, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Honestly, because you've never been at the receiving end of it. Granted I haven't seen this happen in a while but iut happens.



I've had posts moderated and deleted, I've been the recipient of a lot of crap from more than a few people because they didn't like what I posted. So I've recieved my fair share. 

I'm just not the type to cry "they're picking on me".


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

Hi Ella

I am not making up the hard times each of those groups have had with the majority here on Dimensions over the years. If I am crying wolf then you can just forget about it, but the people that happens to do not forget.

William




Ella Bella said:


> Because you don't make sense
> 
> You just pretty much named all of Dimensions. What's left?
> What is it that Dimensions supposedly does to those groups of people? Other than give them a place to congregate and discuss issues with like minded people?
> ...


----------



## mossystate (Jul 10, 2009)

James said:


> Someone reported Blackjack's post and it is now being discussed in the mod forum before a decision is taken.



Ok, this is where things get a little wacky. How much discussion is needed when someone tells another poster to get something through their " thick skull ". Come on. *L* I am not even saying I do not agree with the post...etc...etc...but, BJ knew it was an attack, which he enjoyed making ( vent was the word he used ).


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

Hi Ella

I have never been moderated because I am such a nice person 

I have no ill will towards the moderators. I just do not like how people are treated in threads like this.

William




Ella Bella said:


> I've had posts moderated and deleted, I've been the recipient of a lot of crap from more than a few people because they didn't like what I posted. So I've recieved my fair share.
> 
> I'm just not the type to cry "they're picking on me".


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Jul 10, 2009)

William said:


> I have answered that, all the groups that been publically stoned by the Dimension's Majority. I would include BHMs, FFAs, Thin Women, Smaller BBWs and the the Queer community. There may be others At one time or another all these groups have been on the outs with Dimensions,.
> 
> Why do you ask?
> 
> William



So, basically, what you're saying is, at some point in life EVERYONE takes shit from people? 

Really?!!

I am pretty sure that is just called ... I dunno ... what is that word ... oh yeah!

LIFE.


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

Well..............


Not every group does, most likely every individual does at some time


William

PS I am going out for awhile 



BothGunsBlazing said:


> So, basically, what you're saying is, at some point in life EVERYONE takes shit from people?
> 
> Really?!!
> 
> ...


----------



## T_Devil (Jul 10, 2009)

Why do dogs chase cars? What would they do if they actually _caught_ one?

The initial thing that "inspired" this thread was resolved, no? I haven't read the whole thing, after the first page it becomes repetitive. Are we trying to find some kind of vindication? Some kind of validation for hurt feelings?

I've been away a while, put a lot of things to rest. Any issues that still linger with me about Dimensions I'm going to pretty much try to keep to myself as I can always leave. I may come back, but then I'm free to leave again.

I don't think the moderators are 'phobes. Even if they were, nobody is twisting your arm to be here. I myself have felt wronged on more than one occasion, yet here I am again. Why? I haven't the slightest idea. Will I stay? Maybe, maybe not. If I think I'm relevant, I'll hang around and if I don't feel that way, I know where the door is.

Being a moderator, you just have to have the kind of attitude where you don't hate one particular group of people, you hate everybody equally.
_That's not true!_
Well.... maybe just a little bit true.

I felt compelled to write all this. I don't fully know why, but perhaps it's something that is better to share than to keep to myself. 

Dunno.


----------



## William (Jul 10, 2009)

One last word before I go

I help moderate 4 Fat Acceptance Yahoo Groups and it is a thankless job and my flocks are way calmer that the Dimension's crew. The Moderators here do have their hands full.

William


----------



## tonynyc (Jul 10, 2009)

Amazing thread - and one gets to see the " Dims Domino Effect " in action


----------



## butch (Jul 10, 2009)

Spanky said:


> Butch,
> 
> I, for one, never thought that these new divided up forums were for all to come in and enjoy. Maybe that is my misconception. Whether the BBW Forum or the GLBTQ Forum or the BHM Forum, I assumed these were places for those to congregate with others of like mind or lifestyle. I am not gay, so maybe I felt I had nothing to add or would be sticking my outsider person into a place where GLBTQ people like to go and be others like them. I am not a BHM nor a BBW, so again, my posts might not have much weight in those forums.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your response, Spanky. I certainly understand where you're coming from, as I find myself less likely to post in certain boards here that I'm not sure how close I come to the 'ideal' member. For instance, while I am an unabashed appreciator of the fat form, I don't often post in the FA/FFA board, because I realize that my identity as a fat person is more intrinsic and compelling to me then my identity as someone who finds fat people sexually desirable, and thus I'm not sure how my FA perceptions match the majority of FAs who congregate there.

Same goes for the BHM/FFA board. While I think fat men are uber sexy, I realize that I'm not the kind of woman other BHMs want to chat up, and so I lurk more than post on that board. Luckily, some of the FFAs and BHMs pop up on other boards, and so I've gotten to interact with them, and been grateful for the opportunity. 

I would hope that anyone interested at all in any aspect of our little acronyms would feel welcome to lurk or post at the GLBTQ forum. If I didn't think the GLBTQ forum offered an opportunity for all of us to come together as one community, then I wouldn't be a fan of having a dedicated spot for GLBTQ talk. My main enthusiasm for the GLBTQ board wasn't so I could have my own little spot to congregate with like minded folks, but because i hoped it would entice other GLBTQ people to become members of Dims, and that they'd come to find that the Main board, the Lounge, the health board, and so on, would be equally as welcoming. I hope the GLBTQ forum is just a starting point, and not the end destination, for the queer and/or fat person who comes to Dimensions for the first time. 

As well, I had hoped that those who don't fit under the GLBTQ rubric, but were interested in making connections and finding commonalities with others, would be interested in the GLBTQ forum. In many ways, that is the kind of journey I made when I first posted here, and for a long time after. This felt very much like a place for 'straight people' in my mind,but I stayed, I contributed, met people, and found that there was ample room for this fat queer with straight male FAs, for example. That was a good thing, and showed me ultimately that Dimensions isn't a place 'just' for any group of people, but for all of us who have a significant attachment to the re-validation of all bodies regardless of body size.

Feel free to stop by anytime you'd like, Spanky. There's even a queer belly thread, which is well worth viewing for all Dimensions posters!


----------



## Spanky (Jul 11, 2009)

butch said:


> Thank you for your response, Spanky. I certainly understand where you're coming from, as I find myself less likely to post in certain boards here that I'm not sure how close I come to the 'ideal' member. For instance, while I am an unabashed appreciator of the fat form, I don't often post in the FA/FFA board, because I realize that my identity as a fat person is more intrinsic and compelling to me then my identity as someone who finds fat people sexually desirable, and thus I'm not sure how my FA perceptions match the majority of FAs who congregate there.
> 
> Same goes for the BHM/FFA board. While I think fat men are uber sexy, I realize that I'm not the kind of woman other BHMs want to chat up, and so I lurk more than post on that board. Luckily, some of the FFAs and BHMs pop up on other boards, and so I've gotten to interact with them, and been grateful for the opportunity.
> 
> ...



<giggle> 

Thanks for the post Butch. I can see how a lot of us can feel a little out of place and sometimes don't feel comfortable venturing over to the other side of the room without an invite. Honestly, in Dims world, after all of these years, so many of the personalities cease (for me) to be fat people or gay people or FAs or BHMs on and on. They are just nice people or not so nice people, interesting or boring, you get the point. Heck, I probably couldn't guess the lesbians from the straights form the bi's (speaking of women only) on this site anyway, unless they make it known. Heck, half of the time it really doesn't matter anyway. The other half I am clueless about it. 

I'll stop by sometime. You bring the 7 & 7.


----------



## The Fez (Jul 11, 2009)

You guys would probably save a lot of time if you just copied the 3rd page in for the rest of the thread. It has pretty much the same effect.


----------



## bigsexy920 (Jul 11, 2009)

What was the question again ?


Oh MY GOD !!!!!


----------



## butch (Jul 11, 2009)

bigsexy920 said:


> What was the question again ?
> 
> 
> Oh MY GOD !!!!!



For those of you who have forgotten, the original question was: 

"Are people moderating Dimensions Hot Homosexuals??"

The final answer is:

Yes! At least one is.


----------



## kayrae (Jul 11, 2009)

Pix pls. kthnxbye.


----------



## shadowmaker87 (Jul 11, 2009)

it's not tht ! it's ppl who cant accept the way n the lifestyle of other ppl that r gay! im in the military n over in iraq, i have to admit now tht the serivce r kickin ppl out cause they r gay! which i cant understand; i really cant! im not gay, i have friends that r gay n have gay in my family! i love them 4 them! n it opened my eyes to where tht they r ppl too! but the military don't c tht !? they c that the person whoi s gay ; cant perform thEIr task or their job tht they r asssigned to do ! there was an issue of tht in the "stars and stripes" paper over here the past month or so n it pisses me off to c tht gays r being treated like the "blacks" back in the 60's! gays shouldn't have to worry bout on who is out there to "beat them" or have to deal with a "hate crime" , personally ,i really do think tht gays should have a place in life ,esp. the military! i'm just wondering if the military have seen the job market now?! there aint no jobs out there ! none at all! if the ppl tht r gay has to enter the military , then they should do it! jobs r hard to come by now! i would proudly serve by a gay person if it comes down to tht! One of my instructors from mob. told us : "if u have beef with 1 of ur soldiers n u happen to b in an firefight n 1 of u gets hit n die ; u better have a good answer to tht person 's family n the jury on y u didnt save tht guys life?!" same goes if ur gay ; i would rather save a gay person's life n get aids than go to jail n have to deal with the burden 4 the rest of my life! the way i c it is ; if i have to save a person whos is gay then ill do it! n then ill worried bout if tht person has aids or not! BUT THT 'S JUST ME!!!


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Jul 11, 2009)

This thread is STILL open? LOL.

What a train wreck. I just.can't.stop.looking!!!!


----------



## mossystate (Jul 11, 2009)

shadowmaker87 said:


> i would rather save a gay person's life n get aids than go to jail n have to deal with the burden 4 the rest of my life! the way i c it is ; if i have to save a person whos is gay then ill do it! n then ill worried bout if tht person has aids or not! BUT THT 'S JUST ME!!!



You do realize that................................oh.....nevermind. ThT's Jst U.


----------



## comaseason (Jul 11, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> This thread is STILL open? LOL.
> 
> What a train wreck. I just.can't.stop.looking!!!!



No kidding. :doh:

_*Note to self... you value your brain cells. Stop looking at this effing thread. Thank you._


----------



## Sandie S-R (Jul 11, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> This thread is STILL open? LOL.
> 
> What a train wreck. I just.can't.stop.looking!!!!




Actually, no it is not still open. 

Since this has gone way off topic - It's being shut down. 

/Moderator


----------

