Oh, for Pete's Sake! - Page 4 - Talk About Marriage
Coping with Infidelity Relationship recovery from the destructiveness of infidelity.

User Tag List

 135Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #46 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 07:32 AM
Registered User
 
Cyclonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

I've been banned on LS for voicing opinions that doesn't agree with management etiquette regarding (PC term) wayward spouse coddling. I wasn't vicious, but I did take them to task. Shame on me.
LS is notorious for protecting those who draw the most readers in. They allowed certain individuals free reign for many years but when they became to hot instead of banning they were given time off for bad behavior. If you were a newbie, without any history and did one tenth of what the chosen ones did you were axed without warning.
The moderation is pathetic self serving shooting from the hip. The head moderator thinks he is wisdom incarnate, yet he is a remorseless cheating pos himself. I had a few hundred posts, and PM'd many others. Learned a lot about LS inner workings. LS is horrid. I have no clue if it happens here, but on LS there are many hook ups and you're treated to a front row seat to the drama. Moderators love it readership numbers soar. I read a few, made me sick, and what was said should've led to banning, but it didn't.
Moderators posts their advice using another name or two. Unlike here and SI where moderation is out in the open as it should be. They hide behind everyday names when they moderate. That in of itself sucks.
If a member is their friend, they get special treatment and if they don't like you because you caught them telling two different stories and call them out, they tell their buddy and your taken for a ride. Banned. Which is what happened to me.
At least on SI, they provide a safe spot for cheaters by only allowing cheaters to talk. They use a stop sign. It works. If a betrayed posts it is deleted. Some may disagree with that, but I think it helps. There is a discussion with one where the wife doesn't know her husband is cheating. No coddling there. But sure there is coddling but there is a lot more chewing out by former cheating spouses and guidance given for those who want to get out of infidelity. Fireworks happen when the betrayed also posts there. But moderation like here is pretty good.
Thank goodness.

Cyclonic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 08:19 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,456
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonic View Post
If you were a newbie, without any history and did one tenth of what the chosen ones did you were axed without warning.
It's been my experience at LS that new posters that start right in by blasting the cheaters which predominate the site, are immediately permabanned. There is no doubt the site is pro-cheater, there are entire subforums dedicated to the OM and OW and they freely discuss how they've destroyed marriages and families with no regard to the collateral damage, only about their own selfish needs.

That much being said, it does naturally follow that established long term members would be given more slack if they violated whatever the TOS of that particular site may be, no matter how horrible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonic View Post
The moderation is pathetic self serving shooting from the hip. The head moderator thinks he is wisdom incarnate, yet he is a remorseless cheating pos himself.
I too have heard the site owner is a cheater, which would explain the attitude and philosophy of the site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonic View Post
Moderators posts their advice using another name or two. Unlike here and SI where moderation is out in the open as it should be. They hide behind everyday names when they moderate. That in of itself sucks.
On this point I will disagree with you. I have moderated several internet discussion boards over the years and many of them use the strategy where moderators have a separate, normal user ID, where they can post without other members thinking their posts somehow represent the opinion of the site- which is good, because they don't. It also takes pressure off the moderators, because they don't have to give extra thought to every post they make as a regular user, and wonder if their post is inline with what a moderator should write. There are a few other distinct advantages to moderators having a separate user ID but those are the main ones.
browser is offline  
post #48 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 09:34 AM
Registered User
 
Cyclonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by browser View Post
It's been my experience at LS that new posters that start right in by blasting the cheaters which predominate the site, are immediately permabanned.
I was referring to those with fewer than 20 posts. Trolls or inconsiderate should be banned immediately. It takes courage to post. When they get confidence and contest a favorite, banning is done. Very heavy handed when it shouldn't be. Its supposed to be a help forum, not a fricking soap opera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by browser View Post
There is no doubt the site is pro-cheater, there are entire subforums dedicated to the OM and OW and they freely discuss how they've destroyed marriages and families with no regard to the collateral damage, only about their own selfish needs.
That's exactly right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by browser View Post
I too have heard the site owner is a cheater, which would explain the attitude and philosophy of the site.
Which explains why the moderators are unremorseful bottom feeders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by browser View Post
On this point I will disagree with you. I have moderated several internet discussion boards over the years and many of them use the strategy where moderators have a separate, normal user ID, where they can post without other members thinking their posts somehow represent the opinion of the site- which is good, because they don't. It also takes pressure off the moderators, because they don't have to give extra thought to every post they make as a regular user, and wonder if their post is inline with what a moderator should write. There are a few other distinct advantages to moderators having a separate user ID but those are the main ones.
I'll agree to disagree. On this and SI the moderators aren't hidden, they moderate and post as themselves. It lets us know they are human to, not hiding behind a mask like moderators on LS. Moderators are both betrayed and former waywards who have reconciled or divorced. Hiding creates distrust, and on this type of site if you don't believe in the moderators honesty then why be there? I agree, certain forums hiding that fact might be necessary. Here, and on SI, LS, and relationship forums it helps to know moderators have been there to.
We all hide our identities my name is not Cyclonic although my life has been a cyclone. Anonymity is what allows us to talk.
Not to T/J but here and on SI there is little concern about moderation unlike LS. Why? Because moderation does there job AND posts as members.
There are no favorites, warnings are given, and if the rules continue being ignored out you go as it should be.
But there is one thing I do like more on SI. You can speak very free. Swearing, or colorful words are allowed. I think that is great
Cyclonic is offline  
 
post #49 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 01:10 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,505
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAMAT View Post
I think there is a sub-species of cheater who on some level really believes they are helping their affair partners marriage out by, helping their sex life, providing emotional support, being an aunt/uncle to the kids, etc.

Calls her OM MM too, likely has a fantasy she is actually the wife. Could turn into a bunny burner.

Tamat
The rare one is the one who actually feels guilty. This type of thinking is the common one.

I think that site is a necessary evil but it should be required reading from every BS just so they can know they kind of people they are dealing with. And make no mistake this is the kind of people most of them are.

Last edited by sokillme; 03-12-2017 at 01:15 PM.
sokillme is online now  
post #50 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 02:37 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,456
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonic View Post
if you don't believe in the moderators honesty then why be there?
I personally don't frequent a particular site nor do I specifically avoidit because of how I feel about the moderating, unless it's so restrictive it prevents me from posting to a significant extent. Whether the moderators are "honest" is of no concern to me. I don't post on forums such as LS because I find the philosophy of supporting cheaters and affair partner to be unpleasant and I am unable to express my displeasure, other sites, such as ENA are way too restrictive when it comes to moderating so I've given up on that one as well. I've tried other relationship forums but don't find them to be as busy or as interesting in their content or the quality of the membership.
browser is offline  
post #51 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 04:52 PM
Member
 
Vinnydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Southern USA, but longtime NYC boy prior to our move.
Posts: 553
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

I got banned for a language violation at Loveshack. I called my ex girlfriend who was addicted to crack an a prostitute, a crack W***e. That was her words, but they somehow thought that was more derogatory than crack prostitute. This was in a sex forum no less. For me it is ridiculous how we are afraid of some words that mean exactly the same as a lot of other words. OK to say butt but not ass. OK to say poop but not S**t. Using the F word as an adjective has no sexual meaning whatsoever and yet will get you banned.

As an intelligent person I find it very funny how we decide which words are bad and which are good when they mean the same thing. What does F you mean anyway? Does it mean that the person wants to have intercourse with me? Why is that a bad word when it means intercourse? It is bad because many were taught that it was a bad word by others who do not know why it is a bad word but that is what they learned.

Many prefer to drown in a pool of their own morality rather than seek the safety of a different morality when the choice is monogamy or your marriage.

Last edited by Vinnydee; 03-12-2017 at 10:05 PM.
Vinnydee is offline  
post #52 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 04:57 PM
Registered User
 
Cyclonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by browser View Post
I personally don't frequent a particular site nor do I specifically avoidit because of how I feel about the moderating, unless it's so restrictive it prevents me from posting to a significant extent. Whether the moderators are "honest" is of no concern to me. I don't post on forums such as LS because I find the philosophy of supporting cheaters and affair partner to be unpleasant and I am unable to express my displeasure, other sites, such as ENA are way too restrictive when it comes to moderating so I've given up on that one as well. I've tried other relationship forums but don't find them to be as busy or as interesting in their content or the quality of the membership.
Honesty in the form of treating everyone whether newbie or veteran the same. Rules are rules. The preferntial treatment of so called buddy's (aka a$$kissers) has destroyed credibility. If you voice your displeasure within forum guidelines and are summarily banned, but if a modbud writes the same thing and isn't. How honest is that?
Life isn't fair. We're here looking for support for injustice in our relationship or to help get out of infidelity or any number of topics with marriage. Not to watch the (while entertaining) bickering when forum hook ups fail or be scared to write something not PC and face banishment, even in PM's. Is this honest? Shouldn't we expect the moderators to be fair and honest in their moderation? I would think so. The moderators here and SI post frequently to offer advice and support. When they moderate they make it very clear. It works. At least in my opinion it does.

The topic if I remember is how LS treats cheaters. An example was given. Here is another, and you better hurry before LS cleans it up, I mean censors it.
Quote:
Noting the skillful segue off the topic of the thread, I'll (William the all powerful) close this up. No sense in any members getting in trouble for this more than necessary. I'll do a review later and clean it up.
answers you don't want to hear - LoveShack.org Community Forums

If moderation here believes this is to much delete, and my apologies.

T/J over.
Cyclonic is offline  
post #53 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 05:25 PM
Forum Supporter
 
Hope Shimmers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: US
Posts: 456
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

William is actually 3 different people. One of them being the head moderator. You can tell by the phrasing/spelling who is who (or at least, I can). Publicly available information posted over there. I know the head moderator's member name and actually his real first name too, but I will not post that since it's not publicly available information. Similarly, Robert is 3 or 4 different people.

Oh well. It's a free internet and we can all live where it feels like home. I considered myself an OW once upon a time, many years ago. I got involved with a man who was separated and living on his own, and after we were "engaged" and had actually rented an apartment together (but before we moved into it), he moved back with his wife. Out of "obligation and guilt". I was so emotionally vested I did not walk away immediately. Thus I was an OW while he vacillated between her and me for a period of time. So I do understand how horrible it feels to be on that end of it, but I hate the idea of OW who consciously go into an affair and just don't seem to have any empathy or anything but selfishness.

I will never date a separated man again.

Don't let people become a priority in your life when you're just an option in theirs.
Hope Shimmers is offline  
post #54 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 05:57 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,456
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonic View Post
Honesty in the form of treating everyone whether newbie or veteran the same. Rules are rules.
Realistically it doesn't happen that way and I'm not even sure I agree with you that it should. A new poster that comes into a forum with guns blaring, making flaming posts and name-calling is probably looking at a permanent ban because their motives are suspicious and they do not have an established record of contributions to the forum. An old member, whose motives are not in question, who might cross a line and break a rule in their hasty knee jerk emotional response to post they find offensive, may get a slap on the wrist, and yes I think that's fair.

The exact thing happened to me this very morning, here on this forum. Despite the fact that I discourage others to call out a troll because it's 1- against the rules and 2- not a good idea because it only feeds the troll, I made a callout on just such a thread, which is now closed by the moderators one of whom also openly questioned it's validity (because it was such a blatent work of fiction). I received a warning from a moderator to basically cut the crap, but there was no ban, and no "flag" on my account for the transaction. You can bet a 5 post newbie would have taken a harder hit, and for good reason. The good contributions do, to some extent outweigh the bad. That's why your car insurance might not go up for the first speeding ticket but it will after the third accident especially if you've been with that same insurance company for a long time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonic View Post
The preferntial treatment of so called buddy's (aka a$$kissers) has destroyed credibility. If you voice your displeasure within forum guidelines and are summarily banned, but if a modbud writes the same thing and isn't. How honest is that?
Hard working moderators on a forum are certainly going to get a more lenient response from their fellow moderators. Cops speed all the time and don't get tickets. You said it yourself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonic View Post
Life isn't fair.
You're starting to sound somewhat whiney about the policies over at LS. I'm going to suggest you take a deep breath, understand they are going to do whatever they want over there and there's nothing you can do about it except decide to take your posts elsewhere and not waste your valuable time and energy getting bent out of shape over the unfairness of it all.
browser is offline  
post #55 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 06:04 PM
Forum Supporter
 
TX-SC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,540
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Aside from the fact that cheaters are coddled there, my other issue is one particular member who thinks she is the goddess of infidelity and acts like she is the only one who should have a say. Her husband posts on there too and he basically just agrees with whatever she says. She's really obnoxious.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


"You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!" Victor Von Frankenstein
TX-SC is offline  
post #56 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 07:34 PM
Registered User
 
Cyclonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by browser View Post
Realistically it doesn't happen that way and I'm not even sure I agree with you that it should. A new poster that comes into a forum with guns blaring, making flaming posts and name-calling is probably looking at a permanent ban because their motives are suspicious and they do not have an established record of contributions to the forum. An old member, whose motives are not in question, who might cross a line and break a rule in their hasty knee jerk emotional response to post they find offensive, may get a slap on the wrist, and yes I think that's fair.

The exact thing happened to me this very morning, here on this forum. Despite the fact that I discourage others to call out a troll because it's 1- against the rules and 2- not a good idea because it only feeds the troll, I made a callout on just such a thread, which is now closed by the moderators one of whom also openly questioned it's validity (because it was such a blatent work of fiction). I received a warning from a moderator to basically cut the crap, but there was no ban, and no "flag" on my account for the transaction. You can bet a 5 post newbie would have taken a harder hit, and for good reason. The good contributions do, to some extent outweigh the bad. That's why your car insurance might not go up for the first speeding ticket but it will after the third accident especially if you've been with that same insurance company for a long time.



Hard working moderators on a forum are certainly going to get a more lenient response from their fellow moderators. Cops speed all the time and don't get tickets. You said it yourself:



You're starting to sound somewhat whiney about the policies over at LS. I'm going to suggest you take a deep breath, understand they are going to do whatever they want over there and there's nothing you can do about it except decide to take your posts elsewhere and not waste your valuable time and energy getting bent out of shape over the unfairness of it all.
We can agree to disagree. I wasn't referring to moderators moderating themselves but moderate the readership fairly. With the exception of LS, moderators here and SI do a great job of being fair. Well, unlike LS who hide themselves we know who they are and because we do there is accountability. What Ms. Shimmers wrote is what I heard they interchange themselves so William can be mods, b, c, or d. Same for Robert, and the others. You can tell them apart. It is ridiculous. AND they all have there own member name to, or three or four.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Regarding fair play. I can spin sentences to, or leave things out to change context,

Quote:
Life isn't fair. We're here looking for support for injustice in our relationship or to help get out of infidelity or any number of topics with marriage. Not to watch the (while entertaining) bickering when forum hook ups fail or be scared to write something not PC and face banishment, even in PM's.
I guess being on a relationship forum wanting fair play by the moderators is whiny in your opinion.
Fair enough.
So a first time poster who maybe hurting or heaven forbid whiny goes against forum rules, but because they are new should be banned immediately whereas a seasoned pro shouldn't. Okay.
A new employee is hired he makes a critical error costing the company money, he is fired. You have been working for many many years. You made the same mistake, but because you've been with the company you only deserve a hand slap not firing?

We agree to disagree.


@TX-SC

There are many know it alls. I guess being married to the second president has its perks at least on LS. But there are posters here that post on all the forums, who believe they're experts but if you read there posts, its do as I say not as I do. But life isn't fair. Dang whining again.
Cyclonic is offline  
post #57 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 07:58 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,456
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonic View Post
A new employee is hired he makes a critical error costing the company money, he is fired. You have been working for many many years. You made the same mistake, but because you've been with the company you only deserve a hand slap not firing?
Your analogy is poor. We were talking about breaking rules, not making a mistake.

So yes, a valued employee who has been with the company for years might get a writeup if he's caught smoking in the bathroom but a guy who is caught doing the same during his first week might get the ax permanently and I don't see that as being the least bit unfair.
browser is offline  
post #58 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-13-2017, 09:06 AM
Member
 
FeministInPink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5,010
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

I just read through that whole thread and this whole thread, and I find it abhorrent that a) this woman has been cheating with her beast friend's husband for such a long time, and b) that the LS community actually condones this type of behavior. I know there are women like this out there, and I hate that they give the rest of us a bad rep.

~Happily un-married since December 9, 2013~
FeministInPink is offline  
post #59 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-13-2017, 11:30 AM
Member
 
MJJEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: MI
Posts: 2,211
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FeministInPink View Post
I just read through that whole thread and this whole thread, and I find it abhorrent that a) this woman has been cheating with her beast friend's husband for such a long time, and b) that the LS community actually condones this type of behavior. I know there are women like this out there, and I hate that they give the rest of us a bad rep.
IIRC, the OP and the WH/MM she is having an affair with knew each other first and then his BW put in a lot of effort to also befriend the OP. If I am correct on the timeline, the affair actually predated the friendship between the women. The OP literally allowed her AP's BW to become her friend while there was already an affair in progress. wrap your head around that, eh?

To be fair to some of the LS readership, I was on LS when she posted and read the first few pages in real time. There WERE people who came down on her, very politely as far as I am concerned, for her behavior. Those posts, for the most part, were removed by mods before the next afternoon.

Follow the evidence where it leads and question everything.
MJJEAN is offline  
post #60 of 72 (permalink) Old 03-13-2017, 11:42 AM
Member
 
rockon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: land of liquid sunshine (Florida)
Posts: 855
Re: Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnydee View Post
I called my ex girlfriend who was addicted to crack an a prostitute, a crack W***e.
Um......and the reason you would consider this woman to be GF material?

Just curious.
rockon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marriage for the sake of it breeze General Relationship Discussion 37 03-27-2016 05:42 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome