Kotchanski
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Posts
- 2,850
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 105
- Points
- 193
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Female
Only if I get a signed agreement, witnessed, stating that I get half of any winnings :biggrin1:
Current State of RLG
- Thread starter MickeyLee
- Start date
Only if I get a signed agreement, witnessed, stating that I get half of any winnings :biggrin1:
Mercurygirl
Superior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Posts
- 3,528
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 3,145
- Points
- 148
- Location
- Island of Misfit Toys
- Gender
- Female
1. The Sticky Thread being sticky
It was made sticky for pretty simple reasons: People who qualify to join are women, women read the women's issue forum, making it appear at the top of that section means they can find the requirements and make requests to join without much if any effort and possibly more importantly, without having to repeatedly submit requests that don't meet the requirements because they couldn't find the requirements.
My first post clearly states I don't have a problem with it being sticky, just baffled is all why something that's hardly ever used needs to be? Other groups don't pretend to be so special and members certainly have no trouble finding them, but, whatever, I guess women aren't as smart as men so sticky away.
Although it serving as a passive-aggressive hung sign to hate on other women is still valid.
2. The RLG having requirements to join
It isn't about attacking those who aren't members, or making them feel bad.
I strongly disagree. The name is offensive to those who are not members because it falsely declares that verified (under group rules, not site rules mind you) women are somehow the only "real ladies" on the forum and the remainder are suspect.
It is about having somewhere they can communicate with others, share thoughts and opinions knowing that no matter what is said, the others aren't secret penis holders looking for wank material, and not about to run around using the information found there to cozy up to others. It is a safe haven for women on LPSG, who for the large part get a pretty fucking hard time around here.
That's fantastic, not arguing your sorority charter just the misleading group name.
I am not verified, nor have I ever been verified, I was seen on cam many years ago by one of the other members. I became a member not because I want to wave a flag declaring I have breasts, not to point at the woman next to me and suggest that she may not have breasts, but like many because from time to time there are things I would like to discuss that I am far from happy discussing on the open forum where I'm going to have to deal with comments by those will use it as an invitation for jackoff material.
Oh, so you're a member, which makes your ruling here dubious to say the least.
3. The RLG/RLG thread being against the ToS
Firstly, I know that rule inside out, I know the intent behind it being suggested in the first place, I know exactly what triggered it being suggested, and I know how it is applied from the obvious to the not so obvious.
The RLG does not violate the rules, it does not suggest that anyone claiming to be female and not a member is fake (that would be pretty silly given the 3 month waiting period... that would mean all women who've been here under 3 months are fake!) It merely suggests that as a member of the group, you have a) Been confirmed as female by another member of the group in some way b) Have been here for more than 3 months c) Have gained the trust of other members of the group and d) Have asked to join.
Again, it does indeed suggest other women are fake which makes it silly because you are suggesting all women including those who are under 3 month can't possibly be considered "real ladies". You actually made my point with that statement.
My issue was with the group's name and I'm not suggesting that the group itself be dismantled and that the "real ladies" lose their scratching post to bitch about menstrual cramps. Since this vague verification process has been explained I also don't have an issue with how it's run (not that I ever did), it just seemed odd to me that many members aren't verified with the stamp of site approval under their avatar. But whatever, don't care, your group, your rules. My issue again was with the flag that flies over the group. Sorry, but it's wrong and misleading to call yourselves "real ladies" and declare you've been "verified". Fact is the site has an established process for which others have to go through to become verified. They just didn't start their own group and made up their own rules separate from the site rule for verification. For to do that reeks of entitlement and self-importance. Why is it this group is so special that it can skirt the rules for verification and call itself a bastion for verified women when many of them are not?
Funny how all this back and forth could have been avoided if members had conducted group business in the group itself, which is a point you never address. Seriously, why is this even here? Could it be that self-importance and entitlement I mentioned? As if anyone outside this group gives a fuck. But alas it is here soliciting "real ladies" and non real ladies opinion's on catty in-fighting matters. Or was that an in-joke that should have stay in-house so it would have made in-sense? This forum is for all women. Thus I answered ML's odd misplaced query that made no fucking sense and barked for attention. Therefor the group has nobody to blame but themselves for outsiders chiming in on their labia lounge.
For the record I never believed for a nanosecond that anyone, especially you considering you're an admitted member of said group and should have excused yourself from any ruling on the subject, would actually rule in my favor. Not to say that your reply isn't thorough or that I don't appreciate you taking the time to address it, I certainly do. I'm also not asking for an impartial arbiters' opinion as I fully accept your decision and will say no more (that is, unless my good name is slandered after this post). I'm fully aware that any other admin will immediate side with you, regardless of the facts and truths of the matter, so it's pointless to proceed any further.
I know exactly where and how I stand in opposition against a segment of those "real ladies", not all, some members of the group are pretty cool, have an individual voice, aren't a predictable choir of redundant hens. They know who they are just as they know who the narcissistic catty bitches are. I've certainly had a few public and private laugh about this clique with other members.
However, it's all inconsequential to me now. The sheer fact they dance around in smug glee at a suspect judgment made by a fellow member of their group actually validates me and my less than favorable opinion of them. I've just never been much for bullies and the wormy little brown-nosers who hide behind them. To be honest it was getting a little too chummy in here and this thread was a wonderful opportunity to rectify that and redraw some faded line. Thanks a bunch ML, anytime you wish to conduct group meetings in this forum I welcome it. Not that you need my permission as you already have a member of staff on the team so in the future we'll all get see the "real ladies" douche their mundane feminine fodder all over this once entertaining forum. Shame as the Women's Issues forum has long sucks major monkey ass and this was truly the only place of any interest. Can't wait to see what frothy delights come out of your next bloody discharge.
Good luck with the group "real ladies". All the best.
My work here is done.
It was made sticky for pretty simple reasons: People who qualify to join are women, women read the women's issue forum, making it appear at the top of that section means they can find the requirements and make requests to join without much if any effort and possibly more importantly, without having to repeatedly submit requests that don't meet the requirements because they couldn't find the requirements.
My first post clearly states I don't have a problem with it being sticky, just baffled is all why something that's hardly ever used needs to be? Other groups don't pretend to be so special and members certainly have no trouble finding them, but, whatever, I guess women aren't as smart as men so sticky away.
Although it serving as a passive-aggressive hung sign to hate on other women is still valid.
2. The RLG having requirements to join
It isn't about attacking those who aren't members, or making them feel bad.
I strongly disagree. The name is offensive to those who are not members because it falsely declares that verified (under group rules, not site rules mind you) women are somehow the only "real ladies" on the forum and the remainder are suspect.
It is about having somewhere they can communicate with others, share thoughts and opinions knowing that no matter what is said, the others aren't secret penis holders looking for wank material, and not about to run around using the information found there to cozy up to others. It is a safe haven for women on LPSG, who for the large part get a pretty fucking hard time around here.
That's fantastic, not arguing your sorority charter just the misleading group name.
I am not verified, nor have I ever been verified, I was seen on cam many years ago by one of the other members. I became a member not because I want to wave a flag declaring I have breasts, not to point at the woman next to me and suggest that she may not have breasts, but like many because from time to time there are things I would like to discuss that I am far from happy discussing on the open forum where I'm going to have to deal with comments by those will use it as an invitation for jackoff material.
Oh, so you're a member, which makes your ruling here dubious to say the least.
3. The RLG/RLG thread being against the ToS
Firstly, I know that rule inside out, I know the intent behind it being suggested in the first place, I know exactly what triggered it being suggested, and I know how it is applied from the obvious to the not so obvious.
The RLG does not violate the rules, it does not suggest that anyone claiming to be female and not a member is fake (that would be pretty silly given the 3 month waiting period... that would mean all women who've been here under 3 months are fake!) It merely suggests that as a member of the group, you have a) Been confirmed as female by another member of the group in some way b) Have been here for more than 3 months c) Have gained the trust of other members of the group and d) Have asked to join.
Again, it does indeed suggest other women are fake which makes it silly because you are suggesting all women including those who are under 3 month can't possibly be considered "real ladies". You actually made my point with that statement.
My issue was with the group's name and I'm not suggesting that the group itself be dismantled and that the "real ladies" lose their scratching post to bitch about menstrual cramps. Since this vague verification process has been explained I also don't have an issue with how it's run (not that I ever did), it just seemed odd to me that many members aren't verified with the stamp of site approval under their avatar. But whatever, don't care, your group, your rules. My issue again was with the flag that flies over the group. Sorry, but it's wrong and misleading to call yourselves "real ladies" and declare you've been "verified". Fact is the site has an established process for which others have to go through to become verified. They just didn't start their own group and made up their own rules separate from the site rule for verification. For to do that reeks of entitlement and self-importance. Why is it this group is so special that it can skirt the rules for verification and call itself a bastion for verified women when many of them are not?
Funny how all this back and forth could have been avoided if members had conducted group business in the group itself, which is a point you never address. Seriously, why is this even here? Could it be that self-importance and entitlement I mentioned? As if anyone outside this group gives a fuck. But alas it is here soliciting "real ladies" and non real ladies opinion's on catty in-fighting matters. Or was that an in-joke that should have stay in-house so it would have made in-sense? This forum is for all women. Thus I answered ML's odd misplaced query that made no fucking sense and barked for attention. Therefor the group has nobody to blame but themselves for outsiders chiming in on their labia lounge.
For the record I never believed for a nanosecond that anyone, especially you considering you're an admitted member of said group and should have excused yourself from any ruling on the subject, would actually rule in my favor. Not to say that your reply isn't thorough or that I don't appreciate you taking the time to address it, I certainly do. I'm also not asking for an impartial arbiters' opinion as I fully accept your decision and will say no more (that is, unless my good name is slandered after this post). I'm fully aware that any other admin will immediate side with you, regardless of the facts and truths of the matter, so it's pointless to proceed any further.
I know exactly where and how I stand in opposition against a segment of those "real ladies", not all, some members of the group are pretty cool, have an individual voice, aren't a predictable choir of redundant hens. They know who they are just as they know who the narcissistic catty bitches are. I've certainly had a few public and private laugh about this clique with other members.
However, it's all inconsequential to me now. The sheer fact they dance around in smug glee at a suspect judgment made by a fellow member of their group actually validates me and my less than favorable opinion of them. I've just never been much for bullies and the wormy little brown-nosers who hide behind them. To be honest it was getting a little too chummy in here and this thread was a wonderful opportunity to rectify that and redraw some faded line. Thanks a bunch ML, anytime you wish to conduct group meetings in this forum I welcome it. Not that you need my permission as you already have a member of staff on the team so in the future we'll all get see the "real ladies" douche their mundane feminine fodder all over this once entertaining forum. Shame as the Women's Issues forum has long sucks major monkey ass and this was truly the only place of any interest. Can't wait to see what frothy delights come out of your next bloody discharge.
Good luck with the group "real ladies". All the best.
My work here is done.
urm, yeah
anyway.. i don't have a recipe worth posting at the moment.
so....
Happy Birthday Hamsters!!
anyway.. i don't have a recipe worth posting at the moment.
so....
Happy Birthday Hamsters!!
Mercurygirl
Superior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Posts
- 3,528
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 3,145
- Points
- 148
- Location
- Island of Misfit Toys
- Gender
- Female
You haven't been funny once in this whole thread, what a jip. I was really expect so much more. This latest dismissive "I'm superior to you" nonsense is even worse than your OP.
You haven't been 'funny' or entertaining in this thread either.. so what's your point? I didn't know posters were obligated to be funny and witty in every conversation.
I don't get how the RLG is so 'offensive' to ladies who aren't members, but you have your opinion, and I have mine. fluffychocolate made a good point earlier, she's not a member and she's not offended about it.. and I'm sure she's not the only lady who feels that way. It's not as big a deal as You're making it.
Now, I think we all get your point about the group.. can we move on now?
Mercurygirl
Superior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Posts
- 3,528
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 3,145
- Points
- 148
- Location
- Island of Misfit Toys
- Gender
- Female
You haven't been 'funny' or entertaining in this thread either.. so what's your point? I didn't know posters were obligated to be funny and witty in every conversation.
But I wasn't trying to be funny. ML is obligated to be funny and witty, it's her job around here. Does she ever make serious posts? I haven't seen one.
I don't get how the RLG is so 'offensive' to ladies who aren't members, but you have your opinion, and I have mine. fluffychocolate made a good point earlier, she's not a member and she's not offended about it.. and I'm sure she's not the only lady who feels that way. It's not as big a deal as You're making it.
You're correct, it's not "as big a deal" as I'm making it. Why do you think that is? Could it be that we're on some silly big dick site and tongue in cheek sorta comes with the giant phallus territory?
Now, I think we all get your point about the group.. can we move on now?
I thought I moved on with my third to last post in this thread, however, I did have to address someone questioning my motives in another thread and respond twice here.
But relax, it's just an inside joke. You don't get it because you're not inside. Sorry about that.
But I wasn't trying to be funny. ML is obligated to be funny and witty, it's her job around here. Does she ever make serious posts? I haven't seen one.
I don't get how the RLG is so 'offensive' to ladies who aren't members, but you have your opinion, and I have mine. fluffychocolate made a good point earlier, she's not a member and she's not offended about it.. and I'm sure she's not the only lady who feels that way. It's not as big a deal as You're making it.
You're correct, it's not "as big a deal" as I'm making it. Why do you think that is? Could it be that we're on some silly big dick site and tongue in cheek sorta comes with the giant phallus territory?
Now, I think we all get your point about the group.. can we move on now?
I thought I moved on with my third to last post in this thread, however, I did have to address someone questioning my motives in another thread and respond twice here.
But relax, it's just an inside joke. You don't get it because you're not inside. Sorry about that.
Gillette
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Posts
- 6,214
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 95
- Points
- 268
- Age
- 53
- Location
- Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
You haven't read her explanation correctly. She doesn't make your point with the 3 month criteria, she shows why any assumption that not being in the group means a woman isn't really a woman would be a stupid assumption.
As for her "ruling" on the matter, I think she's just explaining how it doesn't meet the definition of a ToS violation (because it doesn't).
If you were to report the group for the violation in the Support Center you could have a discussion with other mods about it there. Kotchanski, as a member of the group would likely abstain from voting. If it would assure you more send a PM to RobE. He answers to no one, so if he agrees with you there will be a name change (and hopefully it won't be of Pecker's devious creation).
Then you've missed some highly intelligent commentary.
Even when I don't agree with her I learn something.
Labia Lounge...
I like it. :biggrin1:
Mercurygirl
Superior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Posts
- 3,528
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 3,145
- Points
- 148
- Location
- Island of Misfit Toys
- Gender
- Female
You really need to stop playing forum lawyer I already settled this privately. I have no intention of reporting or going any further with this silliness, I completely respect Kotchanski's ruling. Matter settled, end of.
Yeah, I was sort of pleased with myself with the labia lounge too. Just came to me. =]
Similar threads
- 15153321
- General Sexual Discussion 3 4 5 6
