WEHT RAME
Hart Williams
As a denizen of the old ASM and an original voter for *this* newsgroup's
charter, I am disturbed by what has increasingly become apparent:
conversations have died out, and this NG is increasingly an "ID THE PORN
FLICK" forum. If we actually DO get a thread started, if the Mods become
bored, the thread is snuffed out. Maybe "bored" isn't the right word, but
come on, how many times have we heard "OK, this has gone on long
enough. If you want to continue this discussion take it to ..."?
I mean, who's being harmed by continuing a discussion that no one
has to read if they don't want to. If it wanders off topic, what? Is John
Ashcroft going to swoop in and shut us down? Conversely, by shutting
down threads, hasn't it cumulatively driven off most of our most
interesting posters? And of the ones that remain, don't they mostly
post pablum, self-censoring so that they don't get the inevitable
"SORRY, but we're not going to post this one"?
If anyone disagrees, the Mods seem to so overcontrol the discussion that
anything remotely resembling a flame is quashed. Worst of all, *some* Mods
take the arrogant stance that they can "tag" any posting they approve with
their little spray cans in a sort of conversation grafitti that is virtually
unique
in the modern Usenet. A recent conversation on ACME got me thinking about
it.
It was flamey, and it was often obscene, but it was one of the more
interesting things I've read on or about RAME in too long a time.
I realize that this NG was started for two basic reasons: 1) to deal with
the spam that was drowning the old alt.sex.movies group that RAME evolved
from, and 2) to attempt to moderate the endless flame wars that Brandy
Alexandre® seemed to engender. NOTE: I am NOT accusing Brandy of being the
guilty party, mind you, but am merely noting past history. (Kind of
like noting that Bush is in the White House without arguing whether it's
legitimate or not).
The point is that I supported the moderators in the early days when ANY
censorship at all was decried to the high heavens. Remember, ACME was
founded for the purpose of keeping the censored threads alive. But the life
and spark seem to have gone out of RAME. IMHO We have censored ourselves
into near oblivion.
Well, give me the flame wars any day. Moderation was meant to keep things
from getting out of hand, but it is ironic that the group DEVOTED to porn
films, and, therefore, First Amendment values, which, the old, legitimate
Supreme Court told us, DEMAND robust debate -- that RAME is among the most
narrowly censored, over-controlled newsgroups on the net.
(This is not an anti-Mod screed, but I just want to know, what happened?
and what can we do to fix it?)
It used to be difficult to keep up with the day's postings, there was so
much cross-talk. Now, that has dwindled to a trickle, and soon, I fear, RAME
will be no more.
Now, I might just be totally full of shit here. (It certainly wouldn't be
the
first time). But this post is intended to start discussion, not to end it. I
really don't want to see RAME slide into the mud. I really miss the OLD
RAME,
and all of the stellar posters we used to have ... who seem to have
vanished,
pretty much.
So, old timers? What do you think that we should do? This is just my $0.02.
What thoughts do you have on the matter?
--
Hart Williams
www.moyst.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
David
news:<rame.1074291621p29177@linux>...
> WEHT RAME? Where did it go?
I don't know, but I never thought of it as a moderation problem. (The
moderators here seem quite reasonably inobtrusive, and their "tags" as
you call them were always welcome to me as contibutions from
interesting persons do not otherwise post nearly enough.) Rather the
generality of posters now, whose character is, um, less intellectually
inclined. Is there intelligent thought going on about porn? I have
myself given up hope in that. I see only the self-censoring pablum you
speak of (and exemplify in "I may be full of shit,""only my $.02"):
fear of the almighty mob. The only independent-thinking person we had
here was shouted down in hatred. Get Patrick Riley interested in
posting here again and things will liven up considerably. I understand
he doesn't want to be associated with us anymore, so low in character
have we fallen. One need only look at the present state of porn and
the public obviously responsible for it to know the reason why.
It is not that RAME is sliding into the mud but that a mudslide has
overtaken it. I miss the old RAME too.
Mike Paul
says...
> I mean, who's being harmed by continuing a discussion that no one
> has to read if they don't want to. If it wanders off topic, what? Is John
> Ashcroft going to swoop in and shut us down?
I think Moderated newsgroups require a charter.
The reasons for pulling out arcane rules to end a thread may be many and
varied, but always end up qualifying as 'sticking to the charter'...
> Conversely, by shutting
> down threads, hasn't it cumulatively driven off most of our most
> interesting posters? And of the ones that remain, don't they mostly
> post pablum, self-censoring so that they don't get the inevitable
> "SORRY, but we're not going to post this one"?
I have typed lots of replies, then deleted them for that reason.
Venting into this room only *sometimes* is enough...
> So, old timers? What do you think that we should do? This is just my $0.02.
> What thoughts do you have on the matter?
Dunno. Every once in a while I have The Answer to something and post it.
I stay away from some threads to keep them *going*. Vast numbers of
threads, I read, but don't have a single thing to say.
It's not my dojo, and all I can do is go with the flow...
> Hart Williams
Mike Paul
I just wish "______ In Porn" was on-topic, no matter what "______" was...
Cheddar
but I find the whole moderation aspect very annoying. This
is usenet where free posting should never be a issue.
I dont know the history of the group so I cant comment on
how bad any flame wars were. What I would say though is that
flame wars happen all over usenet, in the end people get
bored and the groups get back to normal.
I personally find web forums a lot more useful and more fun.
I would love to post more, as usenet was created for this
purpose but the moderation realy puts me off.
Like you said the group is on it's knees. With porn becoming
increasingly mainstream I would expect the number of
postings to be on the rise, sadly this isnt the case.
At the moment all I see are reviews of titles by people
plugging their websites and identify posts.
The whole moderation factor kills what usenet is meant to
be. Instead of posting a instant reply to a thread we have
to wait for someone to check over it. This could take hours
or even a day. By that time people will loose interest, a
discussion with 10 threads could take a week to get posted.
Ollie W. Holmes
its antecedant. But only a fool would notice that the depth of
discussions does not run as deep as the threads in
rec.art.movies.past-films. Society tends to cheapen sex, and very few
mainstream films have dealt with it in an adult way. The porn industry
generally deals with it in a formulaic way, to the point where most
women today not only do not watch it, but they deride or loath the men
who do. My wife tolerates me watching it alone, yet if we were dating,
she would have dumped me like a cold sore. When I show her some
interesting fare from Andre Madness, she thinks 'cute', but she'd
still rather not watch it on a regular basis.
So we have the problem of content, and the fact that it is repetitive
and prurient, as well as a turn-off to women. Then on top of that, we
have censorship from the moderators. Who can tell what is being
chopped off at the final gate, and what just disappears into ether at
the newsgroup server front end? I was planning to do a thread on the
ghettoization of porn, and how it affects everyone associated with it:
the producers, actors/actresses, distributors, store fronts, and
consumers. Just about everyone thinks of us as low class citizens. So
few of my respectable friends even view it, that I could count them on
the finger (not fingers) of one hand. I can't imagine how excalibur
makes money (the margins must be razor thin and the legal costs must
be significant). I guess Virginia and her beavers truly love the
filthy stuff, and want to share it with the public.
But to do a thoughtful thread on the subject, you have to sit down for
half an hour, thinking and writing. My head hurts from a hangover.
It's easier to just jack off to Stephanie Swift, than to attempt to
beat the headache with an aspirin. Besides, whacking off is almost
autonomic, whereas taking a pain killer and writing afterwards is just
too much effort.
GT
One of the few times I agree with Hart Williams. I've run into this
nit-picking censorship lately myself, since I remember RAME from two years
ago and the topics of conversation were far more interesting than it is now.
Now it's turned into a name-that-tune dog-and-pony show with any sign of
debate quashed by a couple of moderators who make the Bush Administration
proud.
There must be some hope though since they allowed you to post your original
post. Now I wonder if they'll allow me to do the same...
"David" <davidxx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rame.1074348033p10150@linux...
Lordish
> "Hart Williams" <no...@nospam.hartwilliams.com> wrote in message
> news:<rame.1074291621p29177@linux>...
>> WEHT RAME? Where did it go?
Frankly I don't know what to expect from this group, but I have a lot of
fun posting on here. There's a lot of knowledgable people reading here and
I've had a lot of positive feedback from posters.
I've found that the moderators work fast and that they are accommodating.
However what has happened is that a lot of people in the industry have been
violently personally attacked when they've posted here. I invited Ariana
Jollee to post here and immediately someone posted calling her names for
having worked on a particular web site. She never came back. I understand
from earlier posts here that Ryan Conner was driven off in the same manner.
I felt terrible for this and its my belief that Ariana was so hurt by this
she's not responded to my personal posts to her. I feel bad about that.
Is this group for the industry and fans of the industry, or is it for
people to attack the industry or people who work in it? I do know that
I've put several prominent posters on this list in my kill file for being
personally insulting not only to me, but to fans of certain genres of porn,
especially gonzo. Gonzo has been the genre that I've defended the most.
What is RAME about then? Real discussion, as I've often participated in is
of course welcome to me. What isn't are ad hominem attacks and they've
been far too common. That's why posting is down. The moderators should
not allow them through.
lordish
Frank Simmons
>There must be some hope though since they allowed you to post your original
>post. Now I wonder if they'll allow me to do the same...
>
Damn near didn't. Not because of the attempted insulting of the moderators
(this one *voted* for the Bush Administration, btw) but because it doesn't add
anything to the conversation and instead just tries to "get the goat" of others
for no good reason.
We approved Hart's post (and in fact requested he submit it) as we felt that it
was (once again) time to have a meaningful discussion about the topic. Your
post added very little to the discussion (except another "anti-mod" vote) while
it went out of it's way to provoke others. It is a terrific example of the
type of post that is *not* helpful in the discussion.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those Were The
Days **
Frank Simmons
>Then on top of that, we
>have censorship from the moderators. Who can tell what is being
>chopped off at the final gate, and what just disappears into ether at
>the newsgroup server front end?
Well, we obviously have no idea what gets lost in the ether, but as far as we
can tell there aren't any *major* problems with that like there were 2-3 years
ago (back when we were telling everyone and his sister to email ra...@rame.net
to ensure posts got to us...)
As far as the rest goes, we've done the calculations and well-over 90% of all
posts that get past the spambots on the server are approved. When you exclude
the spam that made it past the bots, that number jumps up to the 95-97% range.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those Were The
Days **
MarMac2002
posting here for about 4 years and there was a time when the "debate" and
discussions would be rather lively. Now, they are relegated to "who is this
girl" and "what movie is this scene from". Now, don't misunderstand me, I
think that there is nothing inheritantly wrong with those posts, but it
seems that the NG has gone downhill and the moderators edit (censor is such
an ugly word in the porn business) them a little too much especially when a
controversial subject would come up.
I remember a few years ago several discussions were started about
interracial videos, girls who would and wouldn't do black guys, and the
impact on the industry. It would seem that the original post would be made
and maybe 2 or 3 followups would be allowed, and then the mods would shut it
down. I think there was a FEAR of a flame war starting up which kept them
from allowing the thread to develop into a meaningful discussion.
I belong to a couple of web-based discussion groups and the freedom is much
better there. There are not a lot of flames because people police themselves
on them pretty well. Just don't reply to a flamer and he (or she) will go
away.
I also wish that someone would set up a real time chat room where porn could
be discussed freely. Or .... maybe it's already been done?
I think the moderators have done a good job, but there are a couple that are
a little "quick on the trigger" in rejecting posts that may be on the
borderline. One of the things that bugs me is when a post of mine is
rejected and the reason given is because it has already been discussed six
months ago. Then I see someone post one of those "who is this girl" posts
and it has a link to a website that is obviously a commercial site. It's a
little aggravating.
I think that Mr. Williams is right on target in that many have left the
group over the last few years because it was a waste of time. My hope is
that industry people would WANT to read RAME to find out what the real fans
of adult videos think and listen to suggestions, critcisms, and advice on
making better videos.
BTW, someone mentioned Patrick Riley. I probably disagree with him 90% of
the time, but I enjoyed reading his posts and reviews because he speaks from
a different viewpoint and gives me room to see some things that I have never
thought of. C'mon back Pat!! We love to hate you!!!! LOL!!!!
MarMac
\
"Hart Williams" <no...@nospam.hartwilliams.com> wrote in message
news:rame.1074291621p29177@linux...
> Alexandre=AE seemed to engender. NOTE: I am NOT accusing Brandy of being t=
> --=20
NoseMan
on modding!
Patrick Riverside
shows up here and posts, the anger that seems to flow is scary. It's almost
like someone from the government had intruded on some secret society,
especially when they are a female........
And one other thing, I don't like the "tags" at the end of posts that some
mods
seem to enjoy putting on. It's one thing if you are directly answering a
question, but to chime in with a reply on a matter of opinion in the same
post
you are approving IMHO goes against what a good moderator should do.
===========================
"It's like Lenin said......."
"I am the Walrus?"
crownborn
rame.1074291621p29177@linux>...
> So, old timers? What do you think that we should do? This is just my $0.02.
> What thoughts do you have on the matter?
I doubt I'd be consider an old timer but several of my more
opinionated posts have not shown up in the newsgroup. I take certain
practices of certain pornographers to task for poor product and bad
decisions. I guess the mods don't want anyone to start up a possible
shitstorm. I can talk about a hot piece of ass all day with the next
guy but sometimes I want to get into something of substance and the
mods won't let it through.
Frank Simmons
>From: "Brandy Alexandre" bra...@kamikaze.org
>The issue I keep running into is that fans may speculate, but I may not
>answer the questions. I get rejected article with the missive "let
>them have their fantasies once in a while, will ya?" That's so friggin
>lame.
Brandy - I don't recall seeing a single rejection like this. Maybe it's
happened but I'll be damned if I recall it happening any time recently...
>The other issue is that I am not permitted to fight back.
>Personal attacks against me are permitted, but a retort, or even a
>correction is not. That's how most of the actors were scared away from
>RAME. Fans may voice their opinions of the PEOPLE, not the work, but
>those people can't respond.
>
This isn't true either, Brandy. The problem is that *eventually* one of the
two participants in a so-called "discussion" has to be told to shut up, and
whichever one it is things she/he didn't get a chance to respond.
And the talent that does drop off doesn't do so because they aren't allowed to
respond (they are) but because it isn't worth their while to respond.
Lordish's post is a much better desciption of what has happened to the talent
over the years (Jenteal, Asia, Ariana, etc.) They post, and find themselves
immediately getting bashed. And then when they answer the questions that the
bashers pose, the answers are "good enough" for the bashers. I don't blame
them one bit for leaving.
However, if we really were the "industry shill" that some folks make us out to
be, wouldn't the "basher" posts be rejected in the first place? Hmmmmmmm....
However, there is a distinct problem when dealing with industry folks that are
also posters. You mention it, when talking about the person versus the work.
It's tough for us, and we have to decide if the criticism is valid or not.
It's a tough call, but I think the only fair way to handle it is to ask "would
this post be approved if talent XXXXXXXX was *not* a poster?" If the answer is
yes, then the post gets approved. Unfortunately, XXXXXXXX may take the post as
a personal attack, even when it isn't in the eyes of someone not involved.
Furthermore, when a "response" post is rejected, it is usually sone with the
suggestion of "take it to email" (the canned notice is longer than that, but
that's what it says.) Filling RAME with she siad/he said pissing matched is
not what most people want to see.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those Were The
Days **
Frank Simmons
>I invited Ariana
>Jollee to post here and immediately someone posted calling her names for
>having worked on a particular web site. She never came back. I
>understand
>from earlier posts here that Ryan Conner was driven off in the same manner.
>I felt terrible for this and its my belief that Ariana was so hurt by this
>she's not responded to my personal posts to her. I feel bad about that.
>
They are hardly alone - the same thing happened to Jenteal and Asia just about
the time I started lurking. Since they were two of my favs at the time, I was
really displeased.
>Is this group for the industry and fans of the industry, or is it for
>people to attack the industry or people who work in it?
None of the above - it is a group for people to discuss "erotic movies". It's
not for the industry or against the industry - technically it isn't even
*about* the industry - a long discussion of "9 1/2 Weeks" qualifies as being on
topic.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those Were The
Days **
Frank Simmons
>I remember a few years ago several discussions were started about
>interracial videos, girls who would and wouldn't do black guys, and the
>impact on the industry. It would seem that the original post would be made
>and maybe 2 or 3 followups would be allowed, and then the mods would shut it
>down. I think there was a FEAR of a flame war starting up which kept them
>from allowing the thread to develop into a meaningful discussion.
There's no fear of a flame war - this discussion has been DONE TO DEATH in the
years I've been following RAME. It gets shut down because THERE ISN'T ANYTHING
NEW in the thread, and people bitch about the constant "rascism" posts.
Furthermore, if you look at the history, almost all of the talent that has been
"chased away" has been due to this particular issue.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those Were The
Days **
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074361220p15394@linux:
> I'm certainly not an old timer as far as posting in this newsgroup or
> its antecedant. But only a fool would notice that the depth of
> discussions does not run as deep as the threads in
> rec.art.movies.past-films.
Why not? Is it the disposable nature of porn keeps people from really
talking about it? Is it the fear of having articles rejected? The fear of
having other posters deride you for posting something silly? These are all
honest questions, as we don't know the answers... but we appreciate
everyone's comments in this thread.
> So we have the problem of content, and the fact that it is repetitive
> and prurient, as well as a turn-off to women.
If the movies were more woman-friendly do you think RAME discussions would
be affected? Since there seems to be such a high raincoater population
here (as opposed to some other boards, perhaps), would discussion of Wicked
movies help?
> I was planning to do a thread on the
> ghettoization of porn, and how it affects everyone associated with it:
> the producers, actors/actresses, distributors, store fronts, and
> consumers. Just about everyone thinks of us as low class citizens. So
> few of my respectable friends even view it, that I could count them on
> the finger (not fingers) of one hand. I can't imagine how excalibur
> makes money (the margins must be razor thin and the legal costs must
> be significant). I guess Virginia and her beavers truly love the
> filthy stuff, and want to share it with the public.
>
> But to do a thoughtful thread on the subject, you have to sit down for
> half an hour, thinking and writing. My head hurts from a hangover.
> It's easier to just jack off to Stephanie Swift, than to attempt to
> beat the headache with an aspirin. Besides, whacking off is almost
> autonomic, whereas taking a pain killer and writing afterwards is just
> too much effort.
And the state of the newsgroup, impacts this how?
Personally, I'd love to read your article -- so take some aspirin and get
typing! ;-)
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074374403p19980@linux:
> I would agree with what Mr. Williams has said here ..... mostly. I
> have been posting here for about 4 years and there was a time when the
> "debate" and discussions would be rather lively. Now, they are
> relegated to "who is this girl" and "what movie is this scene from".
> Now, don't misunderstand me, I think that there is nothing
> inheritantly wrong with those posts, but it seems that the NG has gone
> downhill and the moderators edit (censor is such an ugly word in the
> porn business) them a little too much especially when a controversial
> subject would come up.
Like what subjects? The only topic we activel y dread is the racism
threads since NOTHING new is ever said. These threads are so predictable
we could write a robot to seed the group every so often if people are
really so interested in them... :-)
> I remember a few years ago several discussions were started about
> interracial videos, girls who would and wouldn't do black guys, and
> the impact on the industry. It would seem that the original post would
> be made and maybe 2 or 3 followups would be allowed, and then the mods
> would shut it down. I think there was a FEAR of a flame war starting
> up which kept them from allowing the thread to develop into a
> meaningful discussion.
It's not a fear, but the same discussion is had over and over. To wit:
Post 1: "Suzy Slut doesn't do black guys, she's a racist!"
Post 2: "Suzy's hot! Who cares who she fucks? It's her body!"
Post 3: Suzy posts: "Many of my best friends are black."
Post 4-10: "You're a whore!" "Fuck more black guys, racist!"
Post 11: "Racism is hating someone for their race. Not sleeping with
someone based on their race is choice."
Post 12: Mike Paul asks Suzy for proof her white bosses are keeping her
down. However, she'll never reply since she left around post 6.
... and it goes round and round ...
> I belong to a couple of web-based discussion groups and the freedom is
> much better there. There are not a lot of flames because people police
> themselves on them pretty well. Just don't reply to a flamer and he
> (or she) will go away.
(a) Trolls don't always go away.
(b) Web based boards can be retro-moderated, so even if someone does post
something offensive, it can be deleted simply.
> I also wish that someone would set up a real time chat room where porn
> could be discussed freely. Or .... maybe it's already been done?
Adult DVD Talk has a chat server set up; the room is pretty active
Wednesday evenings around 7 PM Pacific...
> I think the moderators have done a good job, but there are a couple
> that are a little "quick on the trigger" in rejecting posts that may
> be on the borderline. One of the things that bugs me is when a post of
> mine is rejected and the reason given is because it has already been
> discussed six months ago. Then I see someone post one of those "who is
> this girl" posts and it has a link to a website that is obviously a
> commercial site. It's a little aggravating.
The commercial site thing is something that's not so cut and dry, from
where I sit. I have no idea if the umpteenth pointer to
blacksonblondes.com is from a legitimatelty curious poster, or from someone
looking for clicks... so we can either reject ALL posts that have a
commercial URL in them or we can just go with the flow, and try to filter
out the egregious ones, while letting the innocuous seeming ones thru...
If you have better insights on the subject, please share them with us;
because we're just as frustrated when we're fooled.
> I think that Mr. Williams is right on target in that many have left
> the group over the last few years because it was a waste of time. My
> hope is that industry people would WANT to read RAME to find out what
> the real fans of adult videos think and listen to suggestions,
> critcisms, and advice on making better videos.
Well, sure -- but then we're just a shill group, right?
We can't have it both ways.
I am accused of making this a shill group, tho I don't see it. I don't see
any ass-kissing in this group, really. If anything, it seems quite the
opposite.
If asked, I would think that if you want to have an impact on the industry,
you need to have their ear. I don't know how much of the industry's ear we
have... at least not in an engaging way. I'm sure people check in from
time to time, but participation is not worth it to them for whatever
reason... while they might participate in other on-line forums... so why
don't they participate here as well?
1. There's only so much time, and they prefer the other group.
2. They don't see the point, since discussions are often stifled by the "I
get a better response talking to the wall" type of argumentativeness
3. They're afraid of being rejected
4. Something else?
We don't know.
Personally, I'd be happy with RAME being for FANS. It doesn't always seem
like we're porn FANs. What causes that? Moderation? Direction the
industry is going? Usenet?
astral implosion
allowing varied topics.
But it is irritating to say the least, when pornstars come here and
expect top be put on a pedestal only to be knocked down and we all get
chastised for it. That's life folks..eveyone isn't going to appreciate
you, accept it.
debate is a very healthy thing..imho
Lordish
>> But to do a thoughtful thread on the subject, you have to sit down
>> for half an hour, thinking and writing. My head hurts from a
>> hangover. It's easier to just jack off to Stephanie Swift, than to
>> attempt to beat the headache with an aspirin. Besides, whacking off
>> is almost autonomic, whereas taking a pain killer and writing
>> afterwards is just too much effort.
>
> And the state of the newsgroup, impacts this how?
>
> Personally, I'd love to read your article -- so take some aspirin and
> get typing! ;-)
Yeah really! I have severe sinus headaches all the time and my eyes are
constantly burning. Does that mean I stop typing to tell everyone I'm
drooling over a particular porn vid? Shit no! So take that 800 motrin,
wash it down with Mountain Dew and a handful of M&M's and get writing. I
want to read what you have to say too.
Incidentally, just because there's a lot of raincoaters on here that
doesn't mean they can't be civil.
lordish
Patrick Riley
>WEHT RAME? Where did it go?
I agree with the general assessment that there has been a
deterioration in the quality of discussion on rame but I think it's
wrong to blame the moderators. It's only when the level of interest
perks up that questionable moderation even comes into play and I
haven't noted any recent threads that have warranted any action of
this sort. Maybe there are lots of erudite posters who are turned away
or off by the idea of moderation or whose initial posts are rejected
out of hand but I hardly think that's likely.
Personally the only recent thread where I have had even the slightest
interest in joining in was the one on orgasms on the set but it
quickly became pitiful as the heart-on-sleeve
desperately-want-to-believe exposed their inexperience and
gullibility. No point in piling on.
However had it been less lop-sided there would have been the risk of
provoking the moderators' iron fist since they would have closed off
the non-movie discussion. In my view you can't talk about sex movies
without talking about sex (the psychology, anatomy, physiology,
evolution, sociology etc thereof) and the psychology (generally
abnormal) of the viewers in relation thereto so I disagree with the
policy in this respect. Still, it didn't get even close to that and
that wasn't the reason I didn't join in.
I think there are other reasons for the decline in quality one of
which is the "Aw gee, we discovered newsgroups" phenomenon. Lots of
the guys who were posting back in the nineties had just joined the
internet and were thrilled to find a forum where they could vent their
pent-up views on the state of porn (pro and con). But after joining in
on diverse subjects that interested them they found that they'd shot
their wad so to speak. There was no point in re-hashing the same old
topic so they quietly dropped out.
Most of those posters were older guys with lots of experience and
whose lives didn't revolve around porn. The real world offered greater
attractions. Not so the new group who seem (my perception of course)
to be younger, more raincoater-ish, and more dependent on porn for
their sex life and their interaction with women generally. The result
is more slavering fanboys, more guys with peculiar tastes, and much
less sophistication in the dialog.
All this just mirrors what has happened with porn in the last few
years. Just when you think the industry can't slide any lower they
surprise you and demonstrate that they can produce even worse and less
erotic movies. Personally the flame of interest has been reduced to a
flicker. Back in the late nineties I used to watch 20+ movies a week:
I rented one porn movie this week and watched three the previous
(probably a high point of the last six months). I have notes for about
50 movies awaiting written reviews but frankly I can't get up the
interest. I have in excess of 200 screeners awaiting watching which I
suppose I'll get around to one day but again no interest.
Every time I go to the movie store I check out the porno section but
most of the time I leave empty handed. The (supposedly) upscale movies
from Vivid, Wicked, etc. use old has-been women like Jenna Jameson and
Asia Carrera not to mention the really ancient such as Ginger Lynn or
use Eurowhores, have an anachronistic view of sex (can they please get
out of the seventies) or a construction-worker's (or Playboy's) view
of what's erotic, and are pretentious. Do they really delude
themselves that they're making real movies? I scan the boxes but
nothing ever appeals.
And then at the opposite end we have the gonzo and wall-to-wall with
the typical raincoater attitude. The girls are all bitches, sluts,
whores, cunts, stupid (they're smarter than most raincoaters), and the
studs (and presumably the raincoaters in their fantasies) are going to
"get" them, hurt them, double anal them, gang bang them, jerk off on
them. Wave after wave of the antithesis of erotic at least to anyone
who's not a case study in the journals of abnormal psychology.
Speaking of studs, these guys are important at least for the
credibility of the girl's reaction. Can you imagine any female being
screwed by Ed Powers and having an orgasm? Getting Jack Napier or
Lexington's baseball bat up their asshole and loving it? I don't know
why they don't just have the girl shut up; at least that way you
wouldn't have the impression that they thought you were an idiot.
There's practically no one credible in the ranks of the studs these
days. They're either too old or too ugly or both (actually old is
ALWAYS ugly). If I can associate a face with the name, the guy
shouldn't be in the business with the minor exceptions of TT Boy and
Mr. Marcus and those are on the exception list because they've
convinced me that they really like the girls; for the others it's a
chore.
Occasionally, despite the ugly male and ugly language and ugly
activities there's a really top-of-the-line female who appears. I'll
pick up the movie for her alone putting up with Ed or Randy but
nothing could make me put up with the gang bangs, the bukkakes, the
gag factors, Anabolic, Diabolic, Red Light District, Evil Angel...etc.
(BTW Mandy Moore is top-of-the-line; not some fat greasy spoon
waitress with big boobs.) Most of the time there's nothing there. Ed
in particular has some real uggas these days.
So what's left? Not much. Maybe the occasional amateur (too many uggas
most of the time), the rare Barely Legal (too many Eurowhores), and
sometimes TT's movies but he also has too many uggas.
If I'm not watching porn, what's to talk about?
Patrick Riley says:
99% of porn is utter crap and 99% of the girls are mediocre. The art
is to find the 1% that is worth watching.
GT
interracial porn and censorship) in the past and now all of sudden it's cut
off after two posts. You moderators have gotten TOO good to the point where
it's not as much fun to post here as it once was.
Doesn't add to a conversation? That's a pretty subjective call to make,
isn't it? Especially after you moderators let similar posts go by without
comment.
I think you guys are too quick on the trigger to delete things, and the fact
that there are some other posters here in this thread who feel the same way
as I do means there's at least a *perception* of it going on out there.
I wouldn't mind having more than just reading about the latest DVD release
or I.D.ing a picture of a girl, or naming that tune because basically that's
what the vast majority of posts have boiled down to.
It's nothing personal, Frank. I mean that, too.
However, I am glad Hart brought it up.
"Frank Simmons" <frank...@aol.com> wrote in message
GT
more than just that.
It's turned into a nanny system whereby posts are refused for the flimsiest
of reasons and debate is stifled for fear of some kind of flame war breaking
out. Or maybe it's just because the moderator doesn't feel like letting a
post through for his (or her?) own personal reasons.
I was surprised they allowed my last post to go through, but won't be
holding my breath.
"b...@cool.com" <b...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:rame.1074375613p20325@linux...
>
> The whole point of a moderated group is that it *is* moderated. This
> keeps the spam out, and if occasionally the moderator grows tried of
> an off-topic thread, then it's his privilege to kill it. That's what
> he's there for.
Anonymous
>posting here for about 4 years and there was a time when the "debate" and
I've been around since before r.a.m.e when it was a.s.m.
>discussions would be rather lively. Now, they are relegated to "who is this
>girl" and "what movie is this scene from". Now, don't misunderstand me, I
>think that there is nothing inheritantly wrong with those posts,
I agree that such posts are rather mundane but I think that r.a.m.e is one
of the few places where people can post such q's and expect to get a's.
I think of it as the 'service' portion of the group.
>I belong to a couple of web-based discussion groups and the freedom is
>much better there. There are not a lot of flames because people police
>themselves on them pretty well. Just don't reply to a flamer and he (or she)
>will go away.
What does 'web-based discussion group' mean? A chat room or another
newsgroup or yahoo-type group?
>I also wish that someone would set up a real time chat room where porn
>could be discussed freely. Or .... maybe it's already been done?
If it exists or will exist I think traffic will be much lower than r.a.m.e.
Likewise
for yahoo groups, I think. Don't you have to register for yahoo groups?
Many r.a.m.e readers are lurkers only or will only post anonymously.
R.a.m.e is important to them. Maybe there are newsgroup stats out there
someplace on subscribers (ISPs), traffic, etc.
>I think the moderators have done a good job, but there are a couple that
>are a little "quick on the trigger" in rejecting posts that may be on the
>borderline. One of the things that bugs me is when a post of mine is
>rejected and the reason given is because it has already been discussed
>six months ago.
Yeah, the mods are different and A LOT of my posts don't get through. I
think mine must be most of that rejected 5-10% :-). On the other hand,
when someone posts a q or comment on a recently discussed topic I will
sometimes try to post a reference to a google search on same (and a
suggestion to avoid rehashing recent archived material). Strangely,
sometimes they get posted; sometimes rejected!
I think it would be great if more insiders, especially girls, posted here.
Most
people seem to think that it's the vicious ad hominem attacks that drives
them
away. I don't know if that's what drives them away, but it's surely there.
Maybe that's something the mods could do better at. Contextually relevant
'personal' criticism is one thing ("I think you made a poor decision
when...")
but some stuff shouldn't get through. This is not a matter of censorship but
an
education in how to argue a point or present an opinion w/o the ad hominem.
Consider it training for a position in the Senate or on the Supreme Court.
Personally, I probably have less patience with repetitive threads or those
that drag on to no conclusion than the mods, so I hit the delete key quite
a bit. If the mods let a few more posts through for those of you that want
them, I'd just keep deleting them.
1. Keep out the spam.
2. Let controversial ideas and opinions through.
3. "ad hominem" is not the _substance_ of controversial material.
Have submitters revise and resubmit.
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074351611p11561@linux:
> I totally agree with you. I would like to post a lot more
> but I find the whole moderation aspect very annoying. This
> is usenet where free posting should never be a issue.
It's not an issue; it's just delayed, provided you stay on topic.
> I personally find web forums a lot more useful and more fun.
> I would love to post more, as usenet was created for this
> purpose but the moderation realy puts me off.
Is it moderation or is it Usenet? This is one of the things we're facing.
Is Usenet dying for discussion? Are new users going to web based forums
since they're not really exposed to Usenet?
I ask since a "lot" of people seem to think we're affiliated with Google
somehow, since the website points to Google's web interface for posting.
The biggest advantage of a web forum over usenet is the ability to retro-
moderate -- meaning no lag, and off-topic articles/threads can be
rejected/deleted after-the-fact since they're only one place -- unlike
Usenet where copies are passed newsserver to newsserver and not easily
cancelled/deleted.
> Like you said the group is on it's knees. With porn becoming
> increasingly mainstream I would expect the number of
> postings to be on the rise, sadly this isnt the case.
Again -- is it because people can't find us?
I'm curious how newer readers found us...
> At the moment all I see are reviews of titles by people
> plugging their websites and identify posts.
Reviews have their place -- but no one really seems to comment on them;
which I'd think their presence would open topics of conversation, either
YEA or NAY on the reviewer's opinion but it doesn't seem to go that way.
> The whole moderation factor kills what usenet is meant to
> be. Instead of posting a instant reply to a thread we have
> to wait for someone to check over it. This could take hours
> or even a day. By that time people will loose interest, a
> discussion with 10 threads could take a week to get posted.
This isn't the only moderated USENET group in the world, so it's not a
completely failed idea, nor does it kill discussion out of hand -- plus I
think the MODs do a decent job of trying to keep turnaround time to a
minimum. We're peered with good news servers that seem to propagate
quickly as well...
Thanks for your comments!
Jeff
Adult Movie FAQ
> One of the few times I agree with Hart Williams. I've run into this
> nit-picking censorship lately myself, since I remember RAME from two
> years ago and the topics of conversation were far more interesting
> than it is now.
So, post interesting things! :-)
We can only post what is sent to us, and for all the talk of how much we
must reject, no one really has those stats except us and Frank did a pretty
good job of summarizing it.
Please post some of the examples of "nit-picking censorship" you've been
subjected to... and I mean this as the "royal you" as opposed to GT
specifically. This way we can gauge (or perhaps clarify) what direction
the group wants to go.
The thing is, the MODs aren't killing interesting discussions in the
interest of flooding the group with ID posts... we can only post what's
been submitted.
Could it be that the industry isn't all that interesting anymore or
churning out much that really stimulates, so we're out of stuff to talk
about?
Discuss. :-)
I just want to wet my beak a little
be", I submit that a big reason why is that many of the former regs are now
posting at AdultDVDTalk.com, including me.
(I used to post here using a different handle)
Just my thoughts.
Mike H
<bra...@kamikaze.org > wrote:
>astral implosion <gryze...@webtv.net> wrote in
>rec.arts.movies.erotica:
>
>> I think the mods here do a great job of keeping the place
>> spam-free and allowing varied topics.
>> But it is irritating to say the least, when pornstars come here
>> and expect top be put on a pedestal only to be knocked down and we
>> all get chastised for it. That's life folks..eveyone isn't going
>> to appreciate you, accept it.
>> debate is a very healthy thing..imho
>
>There's a difference between a pedestal and respect. After all, they
>ARE the people in the movies that are the basis of the newsgroup.
>Intelligent discourse is more than welcome, the SFB dreg is irritating,
>but we smile and answer the same old anyway (some are honest, some are
>not).
Hope I'm not misunderstanding...if I am correct me.
By SFB I take it you mean Slavering Fan Boys...or just ordinary fans
of a certain actress.
Are you saying that the ordinary comments, questions from "legitimate"
fans are irritating to the average porn actress?
Mike H
Mike Mudd
>> I understand
> from earlier posts here that Ryan Conner was driven off in the same manner.<<
Yep, Ryan Conner with her tremendous ass which is
one of the best to ever grace a porn dvd very briefly
visited RAME and was very grateful of the positive
feedback concerning her red hot porn performances
from most of the Ramers. Now I'll take the high road
by just saying RAME'S 'Usual Suspects' then tried
to lull her into a debate on why she doesn't fuck
more black guys and one porn neophyte insinuated
she never did any interracial porn ever. When she
commented that she'd done porn's biggest black guy
in Jack Napier another guy then said something
like "Oh, so you like limp dicks then'. That was
the last RAME heard of Ryan Conner which was a real
shame. I like watching interracial sex wm/bf or bm/wf
or hf or af but if a girl doesn't want to do it then
so what. I can't comment on the Arianna Jollie thing,
but I know Devon Michaels was here for a little while
and aside from Brandy Alexander and even more recently
Felica Fox who's been interrogated on her working
with Khan Tusion the visits are far and few between.
Lakqui(sorry if I spelled it wrong) nails this down
pat in a later post in this same thread and he
does it very eloquently in his description of Rame's
"Usual Suspects" and how they get these porn vixens
to leave in a hurry with their PC vendetta. I hope
Kimmy Lixx,Felica Fox,Brandy Alexandre and any other
porn vixens. By the way, what the heck ever happened
to another Rame visitor, you know, the light skinned
girl from Florida with the puffies that was a real
hit on RAME. Remember, she was 18 and left porn then
made a comeback????? (Sorry I can't remember her
name) ;-)
Spaceman J
news:rame.1074376803p20752@linux...
> "Hart Williams" <no...@nospam.hartwilliams.com> wrote in message news:<
> rame.1074291621p29177@linux>...
>
> > So, old timers? What do you think that we should do? This is just my
$0.02.
> > What thoughts do you have on the matter?
>
> I doubt I'd be consider an old timer but several of my more
> opinionated posts have not shown up in the newsgroup. I take certain
> practices of certain pornographers to task for poor product and bad
> decisions.
I'm all for taking people to task for poor product, but one person's "taking
them to task" is another person's ad hominem. When I reject a post for what
I
feel is an personal attack, I always hope that the person reposts with some
calmer words. But very rarely is it done. All this tells me is that the
attack
was more important than the message, and that's just not needed. You want to
attack each other, go right next door to ACME where there's plenty of room
and
no MODs.
When ACME was first started (after servers decided to carry it, anyways),
there
was much discussion about robo-modding that and using it as a sister /
red-headed step-child to RAME. Why can't that be done now? Hell, there was
even talk about adding a link to the RAME .sig along the lines of "Don't
forget
ACME, it's like RAME, but different".
> I guess the mods don't want anyone to start up a possible
> shitstorm.
Depends on your definition of "shitstorm". If it's "A whole bunch of posts
insulting people", then you're correct. If it's "A sane thread negatively
(or
positively) critiquing other's products", then I think I speak for all the
MODs
when I say we're all for more of that.
Spaceman J
Lordish
either. My understanding is that she's getting out of the sex industry
altogether.
lordish
What I'd like to see is the pornmeisters that post here telling the talent
that have computers to come on here and post. THEN pray that the mods
don't allow personally insulting things posted about them to get through.
I like that the mods are quick to shoot down flame wars. They're
uncivilized. Part of a moderator's job is to protect the poster. It's so
easy for a poster to change a line like "I think your shit stinks" to "I
don't like what you have to say." or "I think your stuff is racist" to "I
think you could use more racial diversity in your work." That's the
difference between an ad homimem attack and discussion.
Here, most of all,I think it's OK to LIKE adult video. I don't like being
called an idiot or an apoligist for the industry just because I enjoy
watching people have sex on screen, as I have been. If someone flames me
or insults me, I think it's just better for me to kill file the poster and
get on with RAME. Maybe it would be better for civility for more people to
do just that and not dignify flamers with any kind of reply.
Again
lordish
Phil
web based discussion group that consists of=20
mainly fans and isn't affiliated with a particular
porn star or video company (not to say that RAME
is, RAME is great! I love RAME)?
-Phil
"Hart Williams" <no...@nospam.hartwilliams.com> wrote in message news:<
rame.1074291621p29177@linux>...
> WEHT RAME? Where did it go?
>=20
> As a denizen of the old ASM and an original voter for *this* newsgroup's
> charter, I am disturbed by what has increasingly become apparent:
> conversations have died out, and this NG is increasingly an "ID THE PORN
> FLICK" forum. If we actually DO get a thread started, if the Mods become
> bored, the thread is snuffed out. Maybe "bored" isn't the right word, but
> come on, how many times have we heard "OK, this has gone on long
> enough. If you want to continue this discussion take it to ..."?
>=20
> I mean, who's being harmed by continuing a discussion that no one
> has to read if they don't want to. If it wanders off topic, what? Is John
> Ashcroft going to swoop in and shut us down? Conversely, by shutting
> down threads, hasn't it cumulatively driven off most of our most
> interesting posters? And of the ones that remain, don't they mostly
> post pablum, self-censoring so that they don't get the inevitable
> "SORRY, but we're not going to post this one"?
>=20
> If anyone disagrees, the Mods seem to so overcontrol the discussion that
> anything remotely resembling a flame is quashed. Worst of all, *some* Mods
> take the arrogant stance that they can "tag" any posting they approve with
> their little spray cans in a sort of conversation grafitti that is=20
virtually
> unique
> in the modern Usenet. A recent conversation on ACME got me thinking about
> it.
>=20
> It was flamey, and it was often obscene, but it was one of the more
> interesting things I've read on or about RAME in too long a time.
>=20
> I realize that this NG was started for two basic reasons: 1) to deal with
> the spam that was drowning the old alt.sex.movies group that RAME evolved
> from, and 2) to attempt to moderate the endless flame wars that Brandy
> Alexandre=AE seemed to engender. NOTE: I am NOT accusing Brandy of being t=
he
> guilty party, mind you, but am merely noting past history. (Kind of
> like noting that Bush is in the White House without arguing whether it's
> legitimate or not).
>=20
> The point is that I supported the moderators in the early days when ANY
> censorship at all was decried to the high heavens. Remember, ACME was
> founded for the purpose of keeping the censored threads alive. But the lif=
e
> and spark seem to have gone out of RAME. IMHO We have censored ourselves
> into near oblivion.
>=20
> Well, give me the flame wars any day. Moderation was meant to keep things
> from getting out of hand, but it is ironic that the group DEVOTED to porn
> films, and, therefore, First Amendment values, which, the old, legitimate
> Supreme Court told us, DEMAND robust debate -- that RAME is among the most
> narrowly censored, over-controlled newsgroups on the net.
>=20
> (This is not an anti-Mod screed, but I just want to know, what happened?
> and what can we do to fix it?)
>=20
> It used to be difficult to keep up with the day's postings, there was so
> much cross-talk. Now, that has dwindled to a trickle, and soon, I fear,=20
RAME
> will be no more.
>=20
> Now, I might just be totally full of shit here. (It certainly wouldn't be
> the
> first time). But this post is intended to start discussion, not to end it.=
=20
I
> really don't want to see RAME slide into the mud. I really miss the OLD
> RAME,
> and all of the stellar posters we used to have ... who seem to have
> vanished,
> pretty much.
>=20
> So, old timers? What do you think that we should do? This is just my $0.02=
.
> What thoughts do you have on the matter?
>=20
> --=20
> Hart Williams
> www.moyst.org
Luke Ford
about 90% of my submissions.
Le Grande Raoul
> there
> was much discussion about robo-modding that and using it as a sister /
> red-headed step-child to RAME. Why can't that be done now? Hell, there
was
> even talk about adding a link to the RAME .sig along the lines of "Don't
> forget
> ACME, it's like RAME, but different".
>
job and lost interest, :P~~~
Somebody needs to grab the bull by the horns and just do it- if that's
what they want..
raoul
Le Grande Raoul
> By SFB I take it you mean Slavering Fan Boys...or just ordinary fans
> of a certain actress.
SFB= "You are a goddess! Oh, what I would do to just smell your dirty
underwear- if I was worthy to do so! That would be heaven"
Fan= "Damn, you looked good in that video. It's better than your scene
in <video> and in <video>. Wow, in those ones, it looked like you had
been up all night the night before. What was up with that? Do you have
anything coming out soon?"
HTH
raoul
Le Grande Raoul
<bra...@kamikaze.org> wrote:
> Frank Simmons <frank...@aol.com> wrote in rec.arts.movies.erotica:
>
> > They are hardly alone - the same thing happened to Jenteal and
> > Asia just about the time I started lurking. Since they were two
> > of my favs at the time, I was really displeased.
> >=20
>
> I supposed I, too, would garner pity if I ran off when faced with such=20
> mental midgets rather than defend myself or attempt to enlighten.
To me, it's not an attempt to garner pity. It's more of a 'what's the
point?"I would imagine some of these girls say, "Why should I put up
with abuse if it's unpleasant for me and it's not helping my business
either. These guys aren't gonna buy my stuff anyway."
You're feisty and kind of like to fight back. Others can't be
bothered.
raoul
GT
comment about a certain porn star's fake tits. I get this response back
from Spaceman J that it's not relevant to the discussion. I strongly
disagreed. Ok, fine. Nothing else I can do about it.
But then something else came into my mind about another post I made not too
long before that about a pretty girl who had hideous tattoos all over her
shoulders and chest. They allowed that one to go through, so I sent that
example to Spaceman J and I get this response back to the effect that...;
"Ya know what? If you don't like it then maybe you should post somewhere
else..."
So I did. Fuck 'em. Why bother, man...
Just forget about it and let it go. Which I did. Until yesterday.
(laughs)
I've been on other moderated newsgroups ( I was even here for a brief time a
couple of years ago) but I've never felt the need to walk on eggshells as I
have on this one. Since I've come back here, that is...
Sure I've made the occasional snide comment. I'm guilty of that, sure. Who
the fuck hasn't? But it's the INCONSISTENCY of those post rejections above
that I bitched about the most.
So for the last couple of months, I've only lurked here a couple of times.
Why waste my time reading the bland, un-erotic raincoater crap (slapping,
spitting, puking, pissing & shitting) amidst the sometimes excellent Jaded
Video or Rog reviews. Or that endless, one-sided racism crybaby crap.
(whaa...whaa...)
There must be *something* good amidst all this GenY baggy-pants headbanger
shit. Right?
It's snowing outside. I offhandedly decided to lurk over here again and
read some of the latest reviews when I see Hart Williams original post.
That struck a nerve so I felt compelled to post something about it.
But I tell ya somethin' man, I really hadn't planned on posting here,
anymore.
Really.
So whether you post this in the forum or only the mods read it, I don't
care. I've had my say.
"Adult Movie FAQ" <f...@rame.net> wrote in message
news:rame.1074396017p26470@linux...
>
> Please post some of the examples of "nit-picking censorship" you've been
> subjected to... and I mean this as the "royal you" as opposed to GT
> specifically. This way we can gauge (or perhaps clarify) what direction
> the group wants to go.
>
General Schvantzkoph
Luke, we all miss your website. Are you planning on making a comeback?
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074412803p31107@linux:
> If I may offer an over-simplified explanation why RAME isn't "what it
> used to be", I submit that a big reason why is that many of the former
> regs are now posting at AdultDVDTalk.com, including me.
Out of curiosity, but why did you wholesale leave for ADT; and not
merely supplement your on-line porn with ADT?
Adult Movie FAQ
> It's turned into a nanny system whereby posts are refused for the
> flimsiest of reasons and debate is stifled for fear of some kind of
> flame war breaking out. Or maybe it's just because the moderator
> doesn't feel like letting a post through for his (or her?) own
> personal reasons.
PROOF PROOF PROOF!
Please post some of your rejections if you have them; what are the
"flimsiest of reasons?"
> I was surprised they allowed my last post to go through, but won't be
> holding my breath.
Which is on you, not us... since it seems that the thread is not
overwhelmingly screaming "over-moderation is the culprit."
commendowa
They don't censor *anybody* over there and the discussion is fun, if
occassionally off topic :-)
Disclaimer: I have no commercial interest in xxxporntalk.com
Bubba
> By the way, what the heck ever happened
>to another Rame visitor, you know, the light skinned
>girl from Florida with the puffies that was a real
>hit on RAME. Remember, she was 18 and left porn then
>made a comeback????? (Sorry I can't remember her
>name) ;-)
Felix Viscious? not sure the correct spelling
Very hot in a differnet sort of way. I wish she would stop doing the
schoolgirl with the gray haired old man thing though. I wanna see her
do somebody younger.
Gawd, I saw a clip of her with herschel savage. It nearly made me
sick. from one camera angle on the couch you could see disgusting
amounts of flab bouncing around from savage's thighs. I know the guy
has been in the biz longer than anyone, but a few trips to the gym
would be good thing.....
Cheers,
Bubba
Frank Simmons
>I doubt I'd be consider an old timer but several of my more
>opinionated posts have not shown up in the newsgroup. I take certain
>practices of certain pornographers to task for poor product and bad
>decisions. I guess the mods don't want anyone to start up a possible
>shitstorm. I can talk about a hot piece of ass all day with the next
>guy but sometimes I want to get into something of substance and the
>mods won't let it through.
I'm sorry, but this is COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!! We constantly let through posts
that rip into talent for poor product and/or bad decisions! When the hell is
the last time anyone saw a port *praising* Ed Powers, frx. If a post that
slams the talent is rejected, it *isn't* because the talent is being slammed
(in fact, Brandy for one griped that we don't let her respond) but for some
other reason.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those Were The
Days **
Spaceman J
"GT" <b83...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rame.1074453613p18495@linux...
> Sure, I'll give you a good example. A couple of months ago, I made a
> comment about a certain porn star's fake tits. I get this response back
> from Spaceman J that it's not relevant to the discussion. I strongly
> disagreed. Ok, fine. Nothing else I can do about it.
>
Actually, Frank rejected the post you're referring to, but that's neither
here
nor there.
Let's talk about the post that got rejected. It was in response to someone
asking for an ID of Bianca Trump. IIRC, your whole post was "Fake tits, ugly
face". I'm sorry, but from where I sit that is not an ID, and it's
unnecessary.
As I told you in email, nobody was stopping you from posting a new thread
entitled "Bianca Trump has ugly fake tits, and an uglier face", but it didn't
belong in the thread it was posted to.
So did you start a new thread? Nahh...that would've been too easy. Instead,
you sent me another email, telling me to give you a fucking break. I
explained
to you again that your post just didn't belong where you posted it.
> But then something else came into my mind about another post I made not too
> long before that about a pretty girl who had hideous tattoos all over her
> shoulders and chest. They allowed that one to go through, so I sent that
> example to Spaceman J and I get this response back to the effect that...;
> "Ya know what? If you don't like it then maybe you should post somewhere
> else..."
So did you start a new thread? Nahh...that would've been too easy. Instead,
you sent me *another* email, this time showing me where we had approved the
same
type of post (someone asks for an ID, you respond with no help, but comments
on
the girl's appearance). And I told you that if you were unhappy, and were
going
to continue to be unhappy with the group, then it might be best for you to
post
somewhere else. I also told you to "get over it", since in my view, too much
time had been wasted on something that could have been solved rather easily,
quickly, and would've gotten your post through. You responded with "I'll get
over it when I decide to, not you...Capice?"
>
> So I did. Fuck 'em. Why bother, man...
>
> Just forget about it and let it go. Which I did. Until yesterday.
> (laughs)
>
> I've been on other moderated newsgroups ( I was even here for a brief time
a
> couple of years ago) but I've never felt the need to walk on eggshells as I
> have on this one. Since I've come back here, that is...
>
> Sure I've made the occasional snide comment. I'm guilty of that, sure.
Who
> the fuck hasn't? But it's the INCONSISTENCY of those post rejections
above
> that I bitched about the most.
But I explained to you why the post was rejected (simple thread placement),
and
told you how to get it through...but did you do that? No, you sent me two
more
emails complaining of inconsistency. As I told you, shit happens. MODs are
human, and maybe a mistake was made in approving the other post. Does that
mean
we have to remain inconsistent when it comes to the same thing again? Fuck
no.
If I make a mistake and allow my son to do something wrong, does that mean
that
I have to allow him to do the same thing in perpetuity?
What kills me is that instead of fighting for days on end, you could have
spent
30 seconds and gotten your post through....
> So for the last couple of months, I've only lurked here a couple of times.
> Why waste my time reading the bland, un-erotic raincoater crap (slapping,
> spitting, puking, pissing & shitting) amidst the sometimes excellent Jaded
> Video or Rog reviews. Or that endless, one-sided racism crybaby crap.
> (whaa...whaa...)
That's the feeling amongst everyone...that's why we have this thread.
> So whether you post this in the forum or only the mods read it, I don't
> care. I've had my say.
Thanks for the thoughts, and as I said last month, I hope your feelings for
RAME
change, and you decide to start posting again.
Spaceman J
Mike Paul
> "GT" <b83...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:rame.1074380490p22405@linux:
>
> > It's turned into a nanny system whereby posts are refused for the
> > flimsiest of reasons and debate is stifled for fear of some kind of
> > flame war breaking out. Or maybe it's just because the moderator
> > doesn't feel like letting a post through for his (or her?) own
> > personal reasons.
>
> PROOF PROOF PROOF!
>
> Please post some of your rejections if you have them; what are the
> "flimsiest of reasons?"
That's kind of hard.
"Take it to email" should cover hundreds of posts per week that I still
see posted, but when certain ones of mine are selected, I have no
recourse and I've never had anything approved on appeal so I don't bother
anymore...
Mike Paul
Let me know the time-limit for these rejections, because some of them are
old and I'll have to find them deep on my hard disk(s) if I can post
them...
S C
rame) on the old group (what was it, asm?). Did a few reviews and
then did a review of Sandy Insatiable (It was a while ago and my
memory fades...). Suddenly a bunch of my postings started getting
rejected, I think by Tim Evanson, whenever the subject of hiv sprung
up. But they were rejected because of my opinion, not because it was
unsupported, untrue or poorly written. And it was not only on hiv but
on many varied subjects, including a tiff with BA and her appearance
on People's court. So, like many people posting on this thread, I
just gave up -- not worth the fight for me. Sure, it's nice not
having spam but with the lag time for postings and the high
censorship, just not worth it. And the bad part is, the mods never
know who they ran off and can go about their day thinking they have
done a great job. but every time they reject a post not for being
spam but for that slim line of ad hominem, or this has been discussed
enough, where reasonable people can disagree, rame loses because
people want the freedom to express their opinions (concomitantly they
leave if they can't express them).
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074454814p18843@linux:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:10:51 -0400, Luke Ford wrote:
>
>> I largely gave up posting to RAME in late 1998 because moderators
>> rejected about 90% of my submissions.
We're happy to see you still troll the group for news items, tho. :-)
> Luke, we all miss your website. Are you planning on making a comeback?
Luke is now writing as "Duke Floored" at http://www.adultbeat.com
crownborn
rame.1074456019p19529@linux>...
> >From: trun...@earthlink.net (crownborn)
> I'm sorry, but this is COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!! We constantly let through
posts
> that rip into talent for poor product and/or bad decisions! When the hell
is
> the last time anyone saw a port *praising* Ed Powers, frx. If a post that
> slams the talent is rejected, it *isn't* because the talent is being
slammed
> (in fact, Brandy for one griped that we don't let her respond) but for some
> other reason.
I had a post that made an issue of some production companies and
internet sites that shoot use only natural sunlight. Generally, that
is an o.k. light source but if you're shooting a couple or group under
foilage or an overhang roofing then image clarity suffers(because of
shadows). It was a something I wanted to see reduced in the coming
year. The hope is that porners understand that the camera lens doesn't
pick up the image in the same way the human eye does. You need more
light for the device. That post didn't get through. The biggest
culprit of this I've seen lately is HEATWAVE ENTERTAINMENT on their
THICK AND BLACK series. I know, who cares, its a bunch of chunky black
chicks but it wouldn't be that much of an effort to correct the
problem.
Adult Movie FAQ
> Let me know the time-limit for these rejections, because some of them
> are old and I'll have to find them deep on my hard disk(s) if I can
> post them...
There's no time limit; merely relevance.
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074483604p28057@linux:
> frank...@aol.com (Frank Simmons) wrote in message news:<
> rame.1074456019p19529@linux>...
>> >From: trun...@earthlink.net (crownborn)
>
>> I'm sorry, but this is COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!! We constantly let
>> through
> posts
>> that rip into talent for poor product and/or bad decisions! When the
>> hell
> is
>> the last time anyone saw a port *praising* Ed Powers, frx. If a post
>> that slams the talent is rejected, it *isn't* because the talent is
>> being
> slammed
>> (in fact, Brandy for one griped that we don't let her respond) but
>> for some other reason.
>
>
> I had a post that made an issue of some production companies and
> internet sites that shoot use only natural sunlight. Generally, that
> is an o.k. light source but if you're shooting a couple or group under
> foilage or an overhang roofing then image clarity suffers(because of
> shadows). It was a something I wanted to see reduced in the coming
> year. The hope is that porners understand that the camera lens doesn't
> pick up the image in the same way the human eye does. You need more
> light for the device. That post didn't get through.
Why? For what reason was it rejected? On the face of it, it seems legit...
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074478822p26792@linux:
> The mods killed rame for me.
Well, you're still kinda around, aren't you... if even just lurking? Has
this thread gotten publicity elsewhere that brought you back? :-)
> And the bad part is, the mods never
> know who they ran off and can go about their day thinking they have
> done a great job.
Well, we don't necesaarily feel we've done a great job. I think we've done
aa pretty good job, and over the 8 years we've been around, I would think
it all averages out on the "good job" side; but it should be obvious that
we think something's gone awry and we're trying to figure out what, and if
there's a solution.
If it's us, we'll change... but who wants to volunteer to be a MOD? THIS
IS A SERIOUS REQUEST. If you want to join the team, drop us a note -- we
don't know who you are, and perhaps new blood is what the team needs.
Perhaps no team at all is an option -- however, I don't know if there's a
spambot good enough to keep the group as spam-free as its been; so that's a
trade-off we might have to live with.
We really are trying to listen here and see what's going on; and mostly,
try to solve it, if anything is indeed broken.
We've been running this group a long time -- 8 years in April -- so lots of
things have changed over the years. What we might have said in 1998 or
2000 or 2002 doesn't necessarily hold anymore in 2004 -- we, as a group,
have changed; and we, as mods, have changed too; the industry has changed
as well -- Riley summed it up pretty well elsewhere in this thread. The
industry and its seemingly downward slide was a large topic of discussion
in Vegas between Den, myself and some others at the ADT party. This shift
colors lots of things that go on here.
As far as losing posters, we certainly expect attrition -- 8 years is a
long time for people to do anything, let alone post to a porn newsgroup.
Perhaps some people have checked out "before their time" due to whatever
political issues they feel are in play. We know it lessen us, but we never
really hear "fuck you and your policies" -- the posters just quietly fade
away; so at times we don't know what we've got til its gone...
As I've said earlier, we appreciate all the feedback -- good and bad.
J
Otto Ramone
remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply, or wonder why your mail was returned
"Hart Williams" <no...@nospam.hartwilliams.com> wrote in message
news:rame.1074291621p29177@linux...
> WEHT RAME? Where did it go?
>
> charter, I am disturbed by what has increasingly become apparent:
> conversations have died out, and this NG is increasingly an "ID THE PORN
> FLICK" forum. If we actually DO get a thread started, if the Mods become
> bored, the thread is snuffed out. Maybe "bored" isn't the right word, but
> come on, how many times have we heard "OK, this has gone on long
> enough. If you want to continue this discussion take it to ..."?
>
> has to read if they don't want to. If it wanders off topic, what? Is John
> Ashcroft going to swoop in and shut us down? Conversely, by shutting
> down threads, hasn't it cumulatively driven off most of our most
> interesting posters? And of the ones that remain, don't they mostly
> post pablum, self-censoring so that they don't get the inevitable
> "SORRY, but we're not going to post this one"?
>
> anything remotely resembling a flame is quashed. Worst of all, *some* Mods
> take the arrogant stance that they can "tag" any posting they approve with
> their little spray cans in a sort of conversation grafitti that is
> unique
> in the modern Usenet. A recent conversation on ACME got me thinking about
> it.
>
> interesting things I've read on or about RAME in too long a time.
>
> the spam that was drowning the old alt.sex.movies group that RAME evolved
> from, and 2) to attempt to moderate the endless flame wars that Brandy
> guilty party, mind you, but am merely noting past history. (Kind of
> like noting that Bush is in the White House without arguing whether it's
> legitimate or not).
>
> censorship at all was decried to the high heavens. Remember, ACME was
> founded for the purpose of keeping the censored threads alive. But the
> and spark seem to have gone out of RAME. IMHO We have censored ourselves
> into near oblivion.
>
> from getting out of hand, but it is ironic that the group DEVOTED to porn
> films, and, therefore, First Amendment values, which, the old, legitimate
> Supreme Court told us, DEMAND robust debate -- that RAME is among the most
> narrowly censored, over-controlled newsgroups on the net.
>
> and what can we do to fix it?)
>
> much cross-talk. Now, that has dwindled to a trickle, and soon, I fear,
> will be no more.
>
> the
> first time). But this post is intended to start discussion, not to end it.
> really don't want to see RAME slide into the mud. I really miss the OLD
> RAME,
> and all of the stellar posters we used to have ... who seem to have
> vanished,
> pretty much.
>
> What thoughts do you have on the matter?
>
> Hart Williams
> www.moyst.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
I am by no means an "old timer' here. I found this NG after reading archived
pages on Luke Ford.com that Luke had written while he was still there....in
reading ABOUT this group, it sounded highly interesting and entertaining.
It's been a disappointment so far, and what I *expected* to find is
essentially what you've described is now missing.
Otto Ramone
remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply, or wonder why your mail was returned
> Not true. We had some lively discussions about controversial things (like
> interracial porn and censorship) in the past and now all of sudden it's
cut
> off after two posts. You moderators have gotten TOO good to the point
where
> it's not as much fun to post here as it once was.
>
> Doesn't add to a conversation? That's a pretty subjective call to make,
> isn't it? Especially after you moderators let similar posts go by without
> comment.
>
> I think you guys are too quick on the trigger to delete things, and the
fact
> that there are some other posters here in this thread who feel the same
way
> as I do means there's at least a *perception* of it going on out there.
>
> I wouldn't mind having more than just reading about the latest DVD release
> or I.D.ing a picture of a girl, or naming that tune because basically
that's
> what the vast majority of posts have boiled down to.
>
> It's nothing personal, Frank. I mean that, too.
>
> However, I am glad Hart brought it up.
>
>
> "Frank Simmons" <frank...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Damn near didn't. Not because of the attempted insulting of the
> moderators
> > (this one *voted* for the Bush Administration, btw) but because it
doesn't
> add
> > anything to the conversation and instead just tries to "get the goat" of
> others
> > for no good reason.
> >
> > We approved Hart's post (and in fact requested he submit it) as we felt
> that it
> > was (once again) time to have a meaningful discussion about the topic.
> Your
> > post added very little to the discussion (except another "anti-mod"
vote)
> while
> > it went out of it's way to provoke others. It is a terrific example of
> the
> > type of post that is *not* helpful in the discussion.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > ** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those
> Were The
> > Days **
> > ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
> > ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
IMHO, anything that adds to a discussion or encourages it's continuation is
a GOOD thing.
Mike Paul
> Mike Paul <mp...@sc.rr.com> wrote in news:rame.1074476420p26315@linux:
>
> > Let me know the time-limit for these rejections, because some of them
> > are old and I'll have to find them deep on my hard disk(s) if I can
> > post them...
>
> There's no time limit; merely relevance.
Well, here's what I found. The *really* good one is MIA, but there's a
reason I don't CC the author on posts anymore: it was being happily used
as a reason for rejection.
(Trimmed to 80 chars max, otherwise copied from original email.)
****************************************************
The message below was submitted by you to the moderator of
rec.arts.movies.erotica either by posting a message to the group, or by
sending E-mail to the group's submission address, or by sending mail to
the group's administrative address.
Your message was not posted to rec.arts.movies.erotica.
Some messages aren't meant for a global audience, and are instead best
served by being sent directly to the poster via e-mail.
RFC1855 says:
Send mail when an answer to a question is for one person only.
Remember that News has global distribution and the whole world
probably is NOT interested in a personal response. However, don't
hesitate to post when something will be of general interest to the
Newsgroup participants.
If your message was cross-posted to any other group, it has not been
received there. To post this message to those groups, you will need to
edit the moderated group out of your newsgroups header; otherwise, feel
free to edit the message and re-submit it to rec.arts.movies.erotica.
FYI rec.arts.movies.erotica is a moderated USENET newsgroup dedicated to
the intelligent and mature discussion of erotic films and videos --
hardcore, softcore or mainstream, gay or heterosexual. Discussion should
be limited to reviews of current and not-so-current releases, gossip,
behind the scenes stories, social, economic and legal issues surrounding
erotic films, and discussion of actors and actresses (and directors and
producers and...). Unacceptable submissions include spams, commercials
and binaries.
==== Message returned to you ====
You answered your own question: "you have your mind closed so why explain
it to you?..." and since you already e-mailed it, we're even.
Your cleverness gets you in toruble sometimes. If you didn't have the
smart- ass response at the end, this would have been posted.
> [This followup was posted to rec.arts.movies.erotica and a copy was
> sent to the cited author.]
>
> In article <rame.1013629205p22018@linux>, shamuR...@yahoo.com says...
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:15:45 EDT, Mike Paul <mp...@sc.rr.com>, in
> > <rame.1013566803p9583@linux>, said about "Re: Cambria list and
> > community standards":
>
> <snip>
>
> > >Most of the rest seem to qualify as "things the rubes and civilians
> > >might consider smarmy", but BM/WF (and no other combination) just
> > >doesn't seem to qualify outside the kind of places that Asia
> > >referenced in http://www.mikepaul.com/Asia.htm a while back.
> >
> > Frankly Mike, your fetish with interracial sex has turned into an
> > unhealthy obsession long ago. So much so that I stopped reading your
> > messages years ago.
>
> Frankly Andrew, your shilling for whatever the Industry chooses to do
> has no equal.
>
> BM/WF - oh, that's just a 'fetish' and White guys with Black heroes
> are to be put down as much as possible. Let's not even mention Black
> guys (or White women) who want BM/WF, because that's a 'fetish' too,
> and not a legitimate interest.
>
> WM/WF - Oh, that's what the Industry makes its *real* money on, and
> isn't a 'fetish', so as long as Cambria defends that, the *hell* with
> anything else.
>
> I won't bother explaining *again* how I don't care if it's a Black guy
> or a White guy (or an Asian guy when available) in videos I watch,
> because you'll just repeat your shilling "It's a fetish, it's a
> fetish..." line, and toe the Industry's "screw 'em if they aren't
> White" attitude...
>
> > S. Andrew Roberts <shamu613 at yahoo dot yada yada yada>
>
> Mike Paul
>
> What I *do* care about, what matters, is that the women I spend money
> on don't pull that "I don't do Blacks" crap, but again, you have your
> mind closed so why explain it to you?...
****************************************************
RFC1855 was picked out of the hat to excuse why the post was shot down,
but it doesn't match the given reason: the "smart-ass comment" at the
end.
And that's what a lot of the complaints are about: a Moderator has an
agenda, and when needed a rule will be used to bounce a post when that
rule isn't applied to other, equally worthy posts.
Now, lately I've had a good run of approved posts, so I'm not unhappy,
but the idea postulated here of bored Moderators using rules in a bogus
way isn't something I'll call uncommon...
Mike Paul
I expect an argument over 'relevance', but here you are...
soljARis
>"Hart Williams" <no...@nospam.hartwilliams.com> wrote:
>
>>WEHT RAME? Where did it go?
>I agree with the general assessment that there has been a
>deterioration in the quality of discussion on rame but I think it's
>wrong to blame the moderators. It's only when the level of interest
>perks up that questionable moderation even comes into play and I
>haven't noted any recent threads that have warranted any action of
>this sort. Maybe there are lots of erudite posters who are turned away
>or off by the idea of moderation or whose initial posts are rejected
>out of hand but I hardly think that's likely.
<snip>
>Every time I go to the movie store I check out the porno section but
>most of the time I leave empty handed. The (supposedly) upscale movies
>from Vivid, Wicked, etc. use old has-been women like Jenna Jameson and
>Asia Carrera not to mention the really ancient such as Ginger Lynn or
>use Eurowhores
>There's practically no one credible in the ranks of the studs these
>days. They're either too old or too ugly or both (actually old is
>ALWAYS ugly). If I can associate a face with the name, the guy
>shouldn't be in the business with the minor exceptions of TT Boy and
>Mr. Marcus and those are on the exception list because they've
>convinced me that they really like the girls; for the others it's a
>chore.
>(BTW Mandy Moore is top-of-the-line; not some fat greasy spoon
>waitress with big boobs.) Most of the time there's nothing there. Ed
>in particular has some real uggas these days.
>So what's left? Not much. Maybe the occasional amateur (too many uggas
>most of the time), the rare Barely Legal (too many Eurowhores)
Some of the quotes above are the main reason for which I personally
switched more and more to Adult DVD Talk in the last few months.
I think the real problem about RAME is not that there is moderation, is
that there is the wrong kind of moderation.
ADT is moderated as well, but IMHO in a much better way.
RAME's environment is too keen with a few, selected old time posters, to
whom everything is allowed. As a result, it is really unfriendly for other
categories of posters, European people in particular. My feeling is that
most of the lines above show, sometimes clearly, sometimes in a more hidden
way, a clear anti-European bias, sometimes an anti-European racism. I have
never read the "Eurow****" term on ADT and I find it frankly disgusting
that it is used here. The dominance of Riley, Ridley99 and other blatantly
Euro-hostile posters on RAME clearly scared away many Euro posters (Walter
Burns, Gabrile Nine come to mind) who are right now heavily contributing to
ADT. This made RAME more and more yankee sided. The point that Riley makes
about male studs is clearly a sign of that. On ADT a lot of porn viewers -
including females - noticed how good and attractive some Euro male
performers (Manuel Ferrara, Denis Marti, Mick Blue) are. Of course for mr.
Riley is like they don't exist, since he's so stongly anti-European.
The point is, how can I discuss with people that are against me, the world
in which I live, the values in which I believe, for the sole reason that I
am European, I live in Europe and I had been raised with Euro values?
In the past I tried to write on the forum advocating a different kind of
moderation to stop this kind of behaviour, but of course my messages were
the ones that didn't make it through, receiving even some angry reaction by
one of the mods himself (Frank Simmons, IIRC).
I had been also scared away by the harsh, non respecting language used
against the performers (sentences like "fat greasy spoon waitress"). In my
opinion or you have some circonstanciated, specific critic or you are just
insulting in a free, gratouitous way. This is another thing that on ADT is
not allowed.
OTOH, there's a kind of moderation on RAME that it seems to me just
pointless. That is about driving threads out of topic. That is mostly
harmless, and if allowed may weld the "group spirit" of the forum.
All in all, to answer Hart Williams' initial question, personally I don't
think that losing some old posters and some threads full of anger was a
loss for RAME. OTOH, I think this didn't happen enough. A more insult
restrictive policy may induce some other old poster to stop writing but I
think it will probably attract some new, not necessarily yankee, writer to
the newsgroup.
In fact those "who is this chick" threads that seem to bore HW so much, are
basically the only ones that right now i read sistematically. There's no
point in engaging on higher level discussion with people that think you are
just one of about 500.000.000 Euro scumbags.
Frank Simmons
>Well, here's what I found. The *really* good one is MIA, but there's a
>reason I don't CC the author on posts anymore: it was being happily used
>as a reason for rejection.
Actually, the reason for the rejection was due to your last statement, as the
mod said quite clearly.
<Moderator being a smartass>
>You answered your own question: "you have your mind closed so why explain
>it to you?..." and since you already e-mailed it, we're even.
<Moderator explaining the rejection>
>If you didn't have the
>smart- ass response at the end, this would have been posted.
<Reason for the rejection>
>> What I *do* care about, what matters, is that the women I spend money
>> on don't pull that "I don't do Blacks" crap, but again, you have your
>> mind closed so why explain it to you?...
i.e., it was rejected because you were directly insulting another poster.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those Were The
Days **
Alex
news:rame.1074390002p24596@linux...
> NoseMan <Nos...@att.net> wrote in rec.arts.movies.erotica:
>
> > Were it not for the MODs, this forum would be inundated by spam.=20
> > Keep on modding!
>
>
> I think that might be the point of this discussion--moderate for spam,=20
> disclosure of personal information, unjustified vitriol, but leave the=20
> rest in peace.
Especially as the moderators don't have the wherewithall to
understand most of the discussions anyway. Not that they need
to, as they're not supposed to censor ideas anyway.
Alex
Alex
news:rame.1074380473p22395@linux...
> I think you guys are too quick on the trigger to delete things, and the fact
> that there are some other posters here in this thread who feel the same way
> as I do means there's at least a *perception* of it going on out there.
My answer is: what trigger? They aren't even supposed to
read the posts, just check of spam. Now they want control
over the intellectual content as well, determine what posts
are "on-topic", which porn related threads are going to be killed.
They don't get it. You may not get paid for posting on
newsnet, but that doesn't mean that posts are worthless.
Posters take the time to grace newsgroups with their
time and interest, and for some punk somewhere to
sit and decide what is a good post is beyond words.
Lordish
performances herein.
I would hope that in the light of the useful thread about the future of
RAME that important industry figures that are lurking or not following RAME
at all would hitch up their codpieces or chastity belts and start posting
on here.
Please if the reply to any of your posts, say Ryan Connor or Arianna Jolle
draw uncivil fire, please put the insultor in your kill file and continue
with what you have to say. Every porn performer has the right to be proud
of their work. Why not share that pride here?
I want to know more about what projects are in the hopper and who's been
cast in them. Brandon Iron, Steve Holmes, and other can provide a lot fo
that info, and if others perceive that as spam that's too bad. RAME is
about what's going on in the Adult video world.
I'd kill to hear Avy Scott on here share her experiences with Seymour
Butts. Avy if you're here start posting!
I'm willing to let the moderators protect stars from attack. I'll do what
I can too. Adriana Jollee please come back!
loridh
Adult Movie FAQ
> Well, here's what I found. The *really* good one is MIA, but there's
> a reason I don't CC the author on posts anymore: it was being happily
> used as a reason for rejection.
[snip]
>==== Message returned to you ====
>
> You answered your own question: "you have your mind closed so why
> explain it to you?..." and since you already e-mailed it, we're even.
>
> Your cleverness gets you in toruble sometimes. If you didn't have the
> smart- ass response at the end, this would have been posted.
>
[snip]
> RFC1855 was picked out of the hat to excuse why the post was shot
> down, but it doesn't match the given reason: the "smart-ass comment"
> at the end.
Sure it does -- I"m sure I reject this.
Bottom line, the post was meant directly for Shamu, and an e-mail rejection
was appropriate. If the tone was bit more genralized, it could have been
posted as a borderline case, but your smart-alecky response pushed it the
other way.
Torris Bin Drinken
wrote:
>"GT" <b83...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:rame.1074380490p22405@linux:
>
>> It's turned into a nanny system whereby posts are refused for the
>> flimsiest of reasons and debate is stifled for fear of some kind of
>> flame war breaking out. Or maybe it's just because the moderator
>> doesn't feel like letting a post through for his (or her?) own
>> personal reasons.
>
>PROOF PROOF PROOF!
>
>Please post some of your rejections if you have them; what are the
>"flimsiest of reasons?"
Any criticism or comments I direct to Brandy Alexander and her
comments on RAME is automatically rejected each and every time.
>
Torris
MarMac2002
Right on dude!! I have been a porn afficianado (sic?) for over 25 years and
I just love to get some "inside info" about what is going on at the
particular companies. They pay thousands of dollars for advertising space in
AVN or the other porn mags, why not take a few minutes and get some free
"advertising" by letting us know what is in the works.
Now mind you, when I mention "advertising", I'm not talking about an ad in
the strictest sense of the word, but more like the publicity appearances
that Hollywood stars make on Letterman and Leno promoting their movies. I
would welcome Vince Vouyer, Jules Jordan or even Rob Black coming on here
and letting us know of their newest project or newly signed contract girl.
However, I think it should be understood by these people that they should
interact with those who are in their fan base and who are customers or
potential customers. Sure, you will come across your share of assholes who
are downright rude, but just ignore them and they will either tone it down
or go away. To respond in kind is to throw gasoline on the fire.
MarMac
Torris Bin Drinken
wrote:
>"MarMac2002" <mcco...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>news:rame.1074374403p19980@linux:
>> I belong to a couple of web-based discussion groups and the freedom is
>> much better there. There are not a lot of flames because people police
>> themselves on them pretty well. Just don't reply to a flamer and he
>> (or she) will go away.
>
>(a) Trolls don't always go away.
When has this group had a problem with trolls?
Torris
Torris Bin Drinken
wrote:
>"GT" <b83...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:rame.1074380490p22405@linux:
>
>> It's turned into a nanny system whereby posts are refused for the
>> flimsiest of reasons and debate is stifled for fear of some kind of
>> flame war breaking out. Or maybe it's just because the moderator
>> doesn't feel like letting a post through for his (or her?) own
>> personal reasons.
>
>PROOF PROOF PROOF!
>
>Please post some of your rejections if you have them; what are the
>"flimsiest of reasons?"
>
I'll give you ano ther example. I had posted that I had read somewhere
(Details magazine I think) that Hungarians had sex more than any
European nation. Average of 150 times a year. I posted with the
rationale that this could explain why Hungary was such a hotbed for
porn.
Frank Simmons rejected this as off topic. When I compalined he said
it had nothing to do with movies. But au contraire it has everything
to do with movies as to why so many willing participants happen to
come from a small out of the way country from Eastern Europe: Hungary.
At the least, the post fits the bill for the "erotica" component of
rec.arts.movies.erotica
Factoids such as that add to the knowledge base of the group and it
should have gone through but there is no court of appeals the
moderator's word is the final word
Torris
Mike Mudd
>>> I remember a few years ago several discussions were started about
> interracial videos, girls who would and wouldn't do black guys, and the
> impact on the industry. It would seem that the original post would be made
> and maybe 2 or 3 followups would be allowed, and then the mods would shut it
> down.<<
I could be wrong but what I believe happened in those
cases were topics like "Why doesn't Asia Carrera fuck
any black guys?" and subjects like that repeatedly
being beaten like a dead horse. After the topic
spawned around 80 something posts then the originator
of the thread would reinvent his screen name and
have another go at it. I don't blame the moderators
at all for shutting down this repetitive subject.
Although topics like "Best Current asses in porn"
seems repetitive it isn't cause you and I both know
whatever girl was queen of the hill for best ass
last year got tons of new competition for that title
this year so posts with those headers are not
redundant and are pretty much subjective due to
porn's ever changing ass-scape.
>>> I think the moderators have done a good job,<<
I do too. They keep flaming to a minimum. Keep spam
to a minimum and whenever one of my posts is rejected
I try to frame it in a way that it relates mostly
to the spirit of rec.arts.movies.erotica.
>> C'mon back Pat!! We love to hate you!!!! LOL!!!!<<
I do too. Pat and Ridley are my two favorite
posters. They're anything but shills and they never
write puff pieces. ;-)
Chaining
wrote:
>They aren't even supposed to
>read the posts, just check of spam.
Shake hands!
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074601220p30238@linux:
> "GT" <b83...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> news:rame.1074380473p22395@linux...
>
>> I think you guys are too quick on the trigger to delete things, and
>> the fact that there are some other posters here in this thread who
>> feel the same way as I do means there's at least a *perception* of it
>> going on out there.
>
> My answer is: what trigger? They aren't even supposed to
> read the posts, just check of spam.
That's just not true. Our charter would be one-line long then: "No spam."
But, instead, our charter has a lot of areas where interpretations are
called into play.
We made the offer in an earlier thread, and we will make it again: do you
want to join the MOD team; help balance out all of us "pathetic SFBs"?
> Now they want control
> over the intellectual content as well, determine what posts
> are "on-topic", which porn related threads are going to be killed.
We have that province in the Charter.
> They don't get it. You may not get paid for posting on
> newsnet, but that doesn't mean that posts are worthless.
> Posters take the time to grace newsgroups with their
> time and interest, and for some punk somewhere to
> sit and decide what is a good post is beyond words.
Then stick to the unmoderated groups; I don't know what else to tell you.
No poster has a 100% batting average if they've posted to ANY moderated
group for any length of time.
However, in other places in the thread, we've said we're looking hard at
robo-mods since, frankly, we're tired. So, we put a call out for new MODs
and announced that we may end up going over to a robot.
However, a robot is far from perfect, and will only keep one side of the
equation really happy, and its not without its pitfalls.
Since we're an "adult" group, we can't say no posts with "motherfucker" get
thru, which would be a valid rule for rec.cats, but bad for us... but this
also cuts down on our ability to trap spam and flames automaticially.
Posts mentioning Viagra run the risk of being trapped by spam filters -- so
we loosen the viagra rule... but then you'll get spam.
But, are we also then ignoring the people who seem to not mind the current
state of moderation in the name of a "calmer" group. Should we ignore the
people who want a more fan-friendly group? Who knows? That's why we've
got this thread, I guess.
I don't think anyone has the intention of having this group go either way
to the extreme. A group of just uncontrolled "porn sucks!" posters is just
as bad as a group of "we love porn!" posters. There's a middle-ground out
there, and it should be found.
alt.sex.movies had it, but lost it; RAME tried to reclaim it, but we've
probably lost it as well... There's a good chance that moderation styles
and policies have hurt us; there's a good chance it hasn't. It depends on
who you talk to and what you think of things. Those people who want to
talk to Ariana Jollee probably think moderation failed them, since the
"attacks" on her weren't really buffered that much, and she left. Those
people who wanted to attack her hard, call her on her actions (or lack
thereof), may be upset because there were (probably, I don't remember) some
really strong opinions that ventured out-of-bounds that didn't get posted.
Finding that middle ground is next to impossible, but we try to do it.
According to some of you, we succeed; according to others, we fail.
Will robo-moderation cure anything? Dunno. I think we'll probably give it
a try to see how it goes... we'll need to get a better spam filter in place
-- one that lets posters know their stuff was rejected automatically as
spam and how come, since a lot of the posts that come into the inbox to be
posted are still spam, so we'll need to tighten that up a little bit before
we take our hands off the wheel...
Adult Movie FAQ
news:rame.1074658821p17238@linux:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:37:16 EDT, Adult Movie FAQ <f...@rame.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"MarMac2002" <mcco...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>>news:rame.1074374403p19980@linux:
>
>>> I belong to a couple of web-based discussion groups and the freedom is
>>> much better there. There are not a lot of flames because people police
>>> themselves on them pretty well. Just don't reply to a flamer and he
>>> (or she) will go away.
>>
>>(a) Trolls don't always go away.
>
> When has this group had a problem with trolls?
I'm sorry - should have written "flamers"
Adult Movie FAQ
> Factoids such as that add to the knowledge base of the group and it
> should have gone through but there is no court of appeals the
> moderator's word is the final word
That's not true!
We have an administrative address -- all moderated groups do, it's one of
the requirements -- rame-r...@rame.net... this is a redirector that
forwards the e-mail to ALL moderators.
If you have an issue with a rejection, send it to rame-r...@rame.net and
everyone will be able to review it. This has been our policy since day
one.
If you just send it back to the MOD on duty, you have less of a chance of
getting an unbiased reconsideration; i.e. When you bring a court case up on
appeal, you don't go to the same judge who presided over the first trial,
its brought to a new judge or a tribunal (more or less.)
As Frank has pointed out elsewhere, we MODs have different views on what
gets thru. (I know it sucks, but its inherent in all moderation teams, no
matter how much you try to stay on the same page. One man's smart-alecky
remark is another man's flame.) Frank rejects your message; if you
complain to Frank, it's probably falling on "deaf ears" since he's already
dealt with the article, and no one else hears about it. If you bring it to
the other mods' attention via the rame-r...@rame.net address, you have a
much better chance of getting a borderline post approved since 5 or 6 other
guys can say "you were a little (whatever); have him resubmit and we'll
post." This happens upon occasion. It doesn't happen more often because
people just don't use the rame-request address as an avenue for appeals.
This is the price (and some call it a benefit) of using a moderated
Usenet group as opposed to a non-moderated one.
Granted, the PITA detail in this situation is you need to resubmit the
post, since once a post is rejected; our scripts can't then approve it; we
need a new article for the queue.
Tim Evanson
news:rame.1074478822p26792@linux...
> The mods killed rame for me. I used to be a consistent poster (before
> rame) on the old group (what was it, asm?). Did a few reviews and
> then did a review of Sandy Insatiable (It was a while ago and my
> memory fades...). Suddenly a bunch of my postings started getting
> rejected, I think by Tim Evanson, whenever the subject of hiv sprung
> up. But they were rejected because of my opinion, not because it was
> unsupported, untrue or poorly written. And it was not only on hiv but
> on many varied subjects, including a tiff with BA and her appearance
> on People's court.
Unfortunately, HIV topics veer off onto topics of science far too
quickly. I didn't reject because I (or anyone else) disagreed with your
post. It's because when HIV topics started coming up on RAME, the
topics ran off into "the virus causes/the virus doesn't cause"
discussions, discussions about epidemiology, discussions about vaginal
and anal fissure tear-rates, etc. Initially, the moderators permitted
these posts. But we took a lot of shit for that, and so we opened up a
threat asking posters to the group what they thought: Should we permit
this sort of stuff or not? The consensus was that we shouldn't, because
it was way outside the topic of the newsgroup. (My own vote was that we
should permit them, but that's not what the group wanted.)
The other issue here is that if you, or any poster, includes a variety
of topics in a post, only one of which is rejectable, then unfortunately
all your comments get rejected. The answer is to take 30 seconds and
take out the rejectable comments and repost.
So why didn't you do that?
I've had my own posts rejected a number of times. And each and every
time, I go back and conform my post to the rules. (Yes! A moderator
had his own post rejected!) I don't understand why people don't do
that.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance I've
come to expect from you non-creative garbage."
Tim Evanson
news:rame.1074601220p30238@linux...
> "GT" <b83...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> news:rame.1074380473p22395@linux...
>
> > I think you guys are too quick on the trigger to delete things, and
the fact
> > that there are some other posters here in this thread who feel the
same way
> > > as I do means there's at least a *perception* of it going on out
there.
>
> My answer is: what trigger? They aren't even supposed to read the
> which porn related threads are going to be killed.
Untrue. RAME's charter is quite specific as to a number of other rules
and regs that are supposed to make the newsgroup a better place.
There's a rule against "me too" posts (which take up bandwidth and are a
big fucking pain in the ass). There's a rule against extraneous
quoting, and too-massive .sig lines. There are rules on staying on
topic for the thread you're posting to.
> They don't get it. You may not get paid for posting on newsnet, but
> that doesn't mean that posts are worthless. Posters take the time to
> grace newsgroups with their time and interest, and for some punk
> somewhere to sit and decide what is a good post is beyond words.
Bullshit. We get it. And we understand very, very well that a poster
often takes 15-30 minutes to compose even a small reply. Longer posts,
and reviews, can take up to two hours to write! And yet, one solid
infraction of the regs and the post is rejected.
It's not about the quality of posts. Lord, if it were, this newsgroup
would be down to 10 posts a day.
But it is about the charter and the posting guidelines.
Tim Evanson
news:rame.1074579612p21743@linux...
>
> IMHO, anything that adds to a discussion or encourages it's
> continuation is a GOOD thing.
Yeah!
My "yeah" just kept this thread going. And I can clutter this thread
with ten or twelve more "yeah, right on!" and "I agree" and "me too!"?
The idea in the charter was to make it easy on posters so that they
didn't have to spend very precious time wading through 15 "me too"
posts. The idea was that if you saw a post on RAME, you'd know the post
was substantive. It wasn't going to be a "me too" post designed to
"encourage [the thread's] continuation". If you saw a post, it was
going to be a real response. Posters take time to write, but they take
time to read as well. And we took a huge amount of shit from posters
for permitting "me too" posts and one-liners and so on.....posts
designed to "just keep it going." It's a real problem on a newsgroup
like RAME, where we have a lot of people who really don't care about
porn and just want the ego-boost from seeing their name in the group or
get a thrill from knocking out abusive responses like "I agree: Jane
Doe's pussy is ragged like a wet paper bag full of ketchup!"
Everyone on this group agrees, I think, that RAME should be something
more than one-liner potshots and "me too" posts. Maybe that's all
that's out there in terms of fans any more. I don't know.
There's this issue in this thread that I keep seeing. It's not only
that RAME should keep out "me too" posts and spam. It's that RAME
should also encourage discussion.
We can do the first one easily. Yet, it only pisses off those people
who make such posts.
I don't know how the moderators can do the second, not without leading
everyone around by the nose or "seeding" the newsgroup with posts. Yet,
absent that, there won't be much good discussion.
So where's the answer? I don't know.
Alex
news:rame.1074702019p30320@linux...
> "Alex" <avdeele...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
> news:rame.1074601220p30238@linux:
>
> > "GT" <b83...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:rame.1074380473p22395@linux...
> >
> >> I think you guys are too quick on the trigger to delete things, and
> >> the fact that there are some other posters here in this thread who
> >> feel the same way as I do means there's at least a *perception* of it
> >> going on out there.
> >
> > My answer is: what trigger? They aren't even supposed to
> > read the posts, just check of spam.
>
> That's just not true. Our charter would be one-line long then: "No spam."
> But, instead, our charter has a lot of areas where interpretations are
> called into play.
> We made the offer in an earlier thread, and we will make it again: do you
> want to join the MOD team; help balance out all of us "pathetic SFBs"?
I want robot moderation. I want freedom of expression for anyone
who wants to put up a thread that isn't an immediate simple sollicitation
for debt refinancing, lolita sex or some phone line.
That's all.
See alt.true-crime and alt.gossip.celebrities for successful examples.
When moderators start sifting through the posts as to
what topics are acceptable, they start choking off popular
groups such as RAME once was.
People actually take the time putting posts together. If
they're not being posted because of a robot program,
that's one thing and they can mend their ways. However,
if their efforts are rejected because someone on the other
end disagrees with the contents, then that's a whole other
thing and people stop posting. Which is what happened.
> > Now they want control
> > over the intellectual content as well, determine what posts
> > are "on-topic", which porn related threads are going to be killed.
>
> We have that province in the Charter.
Who cares?? Just because something looks like it
is on the books, doesn't mean that putting it into action
is a good idea.
> > They don't get it. You may not get paid for posting on
> > newsnet, but that doesn't mean that posts are worthless.
> > Posters take the time to grace newsgroups with their
> > time and interest, and for some punk somewhere to
> > sit and decide what is a good post is beyond words.
>
> Then stick to the unmoderated groups; I don't know what else to tell you.
> No poster has a 100% batting average if they've posted to ANY moderated
> group for any length of time.
I know that about 1998 and later, I didn't even know that
RAME was moderated, because I never noticed anyone
not letting my posts through. No annoying "we're watching
you" signatures added to my posts. No conversations with
moderators.
> However, in other places in the thread, we've said we're looking hard at
> robo-mods since, frankly, we're tired. So, we put a call out for new MODs
> and announced that we may end up going over to a robot.
Ibiza is good this time of year - take that break bud.
Let's see how robot moderation pans out.
> However, a robot is far from perfect, and will only keep one side of the
> equation really happy, and its not without its pitfalls.
>
> Since we're an "adult" group, we can't say no posts with "motherfucker" get
> thru, which would be a valid rule for rec.cats, but bad for us... but this
> also cuts down on our ability to trap spam and flames automaticially.
> Posts mentioning Viagra run the risk of being trapped by spam filters -- so
> we loosen the viagra rule... but then you'll get spam.
Just block the words: viagra, car loan, lolita, mortgage, nigger, niglet, gook,
kike and if you wish, even motherfucker too.
I'm sure you can block IP addresses as well. That will take care of 99%
of all spam.
Alex
Mike South
that are obviously nothing more than to direct traffic to a thumbnail
gallery for some lame ass porn site.
Im way over the racist conspiracy threads.
BUT whats left to talk about. porn is currently in a weird state,
theres the video guys and the internet guys and the two rarely meet
successfully.
where does the future lie.
same can be said for rame...might it not be more viable as an
interactive forum?
Just kinda thinkin out loud
Mike South
http://www.mikesouth.com
The biggest All Hardcore All Amateur website period.
http://www.southernbukkake.com
Real Amateur Bukkake
Kory Anders
topics don't interest me. I don't care about who has the best butt or
who from mainstream should do porn. Nor do I care if a dick touching
another dick during a DP is a homosexual act or not. And it's not the
Mods fault. There's a discussion on Bertolucci's 'The Dreamers' being
given the NC-17 rating, and the majority of posts seem to be "Does she
show her pussy?" or "Did she really blow him?" Only a few posts
actually talk about the implications of the rating or the merits of
the film itself. How is that the Mods fault? It's like the 'Racism'
threads that keep popping up. After a few posts, sometimes not even
that long, the threads devolve into the same flaming. The Mods have
even let some of the threads go too long, obviously hoping it will be
different this time. (And I admit to complicity in such flaming. The
only post of mine I remember getting rejected was a rather nasty flame
about Mike Paul, and it should have been rejected.) I don't read the
reviews like I used to, since I don't run a video store anymore, but
the few reviews I do peruse are more concerned with what positions and
condom use and who is hiding how fat s/he is than anything I could
use, like production values or acting or even if the people seem to be
enjoying themselves. I know this is more the result of the
predominance of pure gonzo, but seeing a review that reads like an
actual review rather than a summary would be nice. Again, not the Mods
fault. I think the Mods have done a very good job, for the most part.
I wouldn't mind some of the discussions like those on HIV going a bit
farther into the technical, but I can agree that there has to be a
line. It's just a matter of distance.
And that's my opinion. :)
Alex
news:rame.1074782413p20893@linux...
> I wouldn't mind some of the discussions like those on HIV going a bit
> farther into the technical, but I can agree that there has to be a
> line.
Yeah, right.
Alex
Drew Black
> I also wish that someone would set up a real time chat room where porn could
> be discussed freely. Or .... maybe it's already been done?
Not to get too far off-topic. This has already been done. We've had
an IRC chat room running for 4+ years and it's rarely used.
Drew Black
news:<rame.1074396019p26480@linux>...
> Is it moderation or is it Usenet? This is one of the things we're facing.
> Is Usenet dying for discussion? Are new users going to web based forums
> since they're not really exposed to Usenet?
Mr. FAQ and I spoke briefly about this in Vegas. I think it's the
nature of Usenet and what it's become for a number of reasons:
1) A few years ago the default installation process for most email
clients (like Outlook Express) prompted the user to set up news reader
clients (in addition to directory clients). A Usenet interface is
still included with these programs but not as part of the default
installation.
2) While Google is very popular for web searches it's not the default
option for most web newbies. They are typcially stick with their
browser's default search engine. Typically MSN or AOL Search.
Granted, AOL Search is currently powered by Google but there's no easy
way to get to Google's Usenet section from AOL Search. Since Usenet
doesn't appear in web search results the stream of newbies isn't
there.
3) While Google made it easier to browse Usenet I think they don't
promote it. Deja News did a much better job of promotion and I
believe that Deja's usenet web interface appeared in web search
results. No longer the case since the Google assimilation.
4) The vast majority of net users are somewhat ADD when browsing the
web. Quick responses, feedback and discussion can keep one's attention
for a little while. Even if rame was unmoderated, the distributed
nature of Usenet makes it inherently slow. Slow responses + easily
distracted users = fewer opportunities for discussion.
5) The "flow" of threaded discussions are often difficult for people
to follow. If you're using Google's browser based reader on a thread
with lots of posts people can easily get lost.
6) The vast majority of Usenet groups are filled with spam, flame
wars and potential copyright infringement cases. Consider a newbie
browsing some groups for the first time. I highly doubt they stumble
on a well run and/or moderated group in their first 10 attempts.
First impressions and all, they forget about Usenet.
While moderation may be driving a few people away it's the nature of
Usenet that's making it difficult to attract fresh contributors.
Without new contributors a group becomes SSDD (same shit different
day) which gets boring for others and they stop participating. Then
the momentum builds and....
Bubba
wrote:
>"MarMac2002" <mcco...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
>> I also wish that someone would set up a real time chat room where porn could
>> be discussed freely. Or .... maybe it's already been done?
>
>Not to get too far off-topic. This has already been done. We've had
>an IRC chat room running for 4+ years and it's rarely used.
and what chat room is that? I love irc, tell me where to go and I
will be there tons:-) (as long as there is someone to actually talk
with:-)
Undernet, dalnet, starchat? I love chattin:-) ,met both my first and
curent wives online.....
Cheers,
Bubba
Mike H
would have to go along with minimal moderation. In other
words...moderate only to remove spam, obvious libelous slander and of
course...direct flames and personal attacks.
I'm an adult and as a porn fan like everyone else here, I/we obviously
can tolerate much crap sometimes. Meaning...sure, without active
moderation there will be various useless posts and responses that add
nothing to a thread. And maybe sometimes a thread may drift slightly
off-topic. But let *me* do the main moderating. I read what I want and
ignore the rest.
Having said all that...in my opinion moderation is not and never will
be the downfall of RAME, if indeed this group is actually on a
downslide.
The problem may lie in the fact that whenever there is any type of
serious discussion in the group...the same 10-12 posters are always
the only one posting.
And more than likely...whatever the topic of discussion is at the
moment...you can just about guess what their general opinion will be.
Why? Because if you are a regular reader of the group, you have heard
their opinion on many, many topics and themes before.
They are super-fans. They know as much ( or more) about the industry
and it's inner workings as does the people who actually work there.
And I'm not complaining. It's just a fact. And this phenomenon is also
at work in many other newgroups...moderated and non-moderated. In any
group. The same 10-12 or so posters contribute 90% of the posts.
However because this a porn group and not say alt.gossip.celebrities..
the topics up for discussion tend to be very limited.
How can things be helped?
Two suggestions...
1) This may sound kinda crazy, but the veterans of the group should
cultivate new posters. Respond to them, answer their questions,
ask their opinions on the subject they bring up. And yes...correct
them if neccessary, but without any smug putdowns.
Allow them to get a little confidence and get a little track record
....then zoom in for the kill. ( Just kidding).
That way chances are the group will not have many weeks of nothing
but WEHT questions, website "reviews" and ID this girl type posts.
2) THe moderators should "seed" the group from time to time as
neccesary to introduce fresh topics. Even jumping in with posts of
their own to inobtrusively "steer" the thread. Keep it of interest
to the casual fan and lurkers who are not into all the "insider"
buzz that's valuable to an extent...but can make reading a thread
tedious at best for all except a precious few who may "get it".
As for industry folks who post here and those who don't becuase of
flames. Complaining customers and fans are a fact. If this was a
auto industry group and the chairman of GM posted...he would get boos
and complaints too.
If you are dealing with customers directly you're gonna get an earfull
sometimes. I don't condone raw unprovoked, uncivil attacks on any porn
star or producer. However you are a player in a very public industry.
If you can't handle civilized criticism that's fair...stay away.
>From what I hear about the day to day personal dealings within the
industry...if a star or producer can't handle a little HONEST
tete-a-tete with a RAME poster asking legitimate questions and
comments...something is wrong.
And in the end...you can always put folks who are out of bounds on
some sort of ignore list.
Just some thoughts.
Mike H
Bobabsinthe
>There's this issue in this thread that I keep seeing. It's not only
>that RAME should keep out "me too" posts and spam. It's that RAME
>should also encourage discussion.
>
>We can do the first one easily. Yet, it only pisses off those people
>who make such posts.
>
>I don't know how the moderators can do the second, not without leading
>everyone around by the nose or "seeding" the newsgroup with posts. Yet,
>absent that, there won't be much good discussion.
>
>So where's the answer? I don't know.
>
>
>
>
>Tim
Not rejecting so many posts because they might be a little off topic would help
keep good discussions going.
Bobabsinthe
>The other issue here is that if you, or any poster, includes a variety
>of topics in a post, only one of which is rejectable, then unfortunately
>all your comments get rejected. The answer is to take 30 seconds and
>take out the rejectable comments and repost.
>
>So why didn't you do that?
>
>I've had my own posts rejected a number of times. And each and every
>time, I go back and conform my post to the rules. (Yes! A moderator
>had his own post rejected!) I don't understand why people don't do
>that.
First you usually just get back a form letter so it's not always clear how easy
it would be to get it posted. If it was rejected once it might be even more
likely to rejected a second time. Another reason is time. Things already move
kind of slow. If you don't find out it was rejected till the next day your post
may come two or three days after the post you were responding to. The topic
might be dead or your post no longer relevant by then.
Steve Holmes
> and who's been cast in them. Brandon Iron, Steve Holmes,
> and other can provide a lot fo that info, and if others
> perceive that as spam that's too bad. RAME is about what's
> going on in the Adult video world.
I've posted a detailed description of the last "Euro Girls Never Say No"
on AdultDVDtalk and here on RAME. But my post to RAME was rejected. I was
told it was "too much of a press release / ad for us to allow".
Best regards
Steve Holmes
Lordish
> I've posted a detailed description of the last "Euro Girls Never Say
> No" on AdultDVDtalk and here on RAME. But my post to RAME was
> rejected. I was told it was "too much of a press release / ad for us
> to allow".
>
> Best regards
> Steve Holmes
Gee Steve, I'd have loved to see that. Perhaps there should be an addition
to the rules that people who work for companies, and can prove it, be able
to post press releases? I mean simple ones, release dates and cast lists.
Perhaps a few words in mild language about how the shot went etc? I
wouldn't think that could be interpreted as spam.
lordish
Darrin
self-promoting, it is crazy not to allow an insider's review of a
movie. We are lucky to have someone with his commitment to RAME, and
there must be a little latitude given for those with a perspective
that very few of us have. There are many "real life" situations where
people get a little more "ear time" based on their position.
Darrin Lucas
Darrin
message which was clearly a CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of his post being
denied.
It is like an editorial that is critical of the station that
broadcasts it.
This is why RAME is the best! All opinions are generally welcome.
Darrin
darrin...@comcast.net (Darrin) wrote in message news:<rame.1075269622p11305@linux>...
29Palms
you mention the words ,"Excuse Miss Tiffany Mynx,..I'm a RAME'r". ....
everyone in the porn industry know your a true adult film fan of the
most highest quality. And it's true..... i've used it b4 on some
models/strippers, and they definitely are very aware of the RAME.net
website. This title does carry weight with everyone in this industry
and business and the title carries weight b/c so many people that are
in the Adult Film Business who are "In-The-Know" post on here b/c they
know this is the first stop where all true fans of porn meet and come
to argue points about porn, have serious discussions on porn related
issues.......not to mention we all wanna know the HOTTEST films both
past, present, and hopefully future.
So to keep LA filmmakers/producers/directors/starlets/studs posting
here we need to give them more leeway when it comes to their postings
after all we wanna encourage them to come here and keep coming here
b/c that's one of the very nice perks of being a RAME'r y'know.
29Palms
soljARis
>> I want to know more about what projects are in the hopper
>> and who's been cast in them. Brandon Iron, Steve Holmes,
>> and other can provide a lot fo that info, and if others
>> perceive that as spam that's too bad. RAME is about what's
>> going on in the Adult video world.
>
>I've posted a detailed description of the last "Euro Girls Never Say No"
>on AdultDVDtalk and here on RAME. But my post to RAME was rejected. I was
>told it was "too much of a press release / ad for us to allow".
And then someone wonders why many RAMErs passed to partecipate more to ADT
forum than to this one.
Didn't the majority of those who answered said that they would like to read
press releases on RAME?
I think that this shows how moderators are following too much a minority of
anti-industry RAME posters.
Frank Simmons
>I agree Steve does have a solid "gripe".
However, you weren't around when the likes of Randy West and Rodney Moore
decided to use RAME as a spamming gound. The RAME charter says that it is not
there for people to plug their products - that can be kept to the sigs.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Christy, Amber, Nicole W., Nikki C., Nikki R.; Those Were The
Days **
Bobabsinthe
>I have not seen Steve's review of the movie, but even if it a little
>self-promoting, it is crazy not to allow an insider's review of a
>movie. We are lucky to have someone with his commitment to RAME, and
>there must be a little latitude given for those with a perspective
>that very few of us have. There are many "real life" situations where
>people get a little more "ear time" based on their position.
>
>Darrin Lucas
I agree. Steve is a regular poster here and joins many discussions and isn't
just posting for self promotions. I feel he should be given a little more
leeway, than someone who would only post when one of their videos comes out.
Torris Bin Drinken
<bra...@kamikaze.org > wrote:
>Torris Bin Drinken <tor...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>rec.arts.movies.erotica:
>
>> Any criticism or comments I direct to Brandy Alexander and her
>> comments on RAME is automatically rejected each and every time.
>>
>
>Probably because that's all you do. It has been accepted as default
>that if I posted something, you will have a criticism about it,
>therefore there is no need to actually post it.
>
> --=20
>Brandy Alexandre=AE
>http://www.swydm.com/?refer=3DBrandyAlx
>Well, would you?
I went to deja news and did a search under tor...@mindspring.com; for
however long they've been archiving messages, I have posted 4718
messages to RAME. Of those, 208 mentioned Brandy somewhere in the
text. That amounts to 4.5%. =20
Torris
Torris Bin Drinken
wrote:
>"Adult Movie FAQ" <f...@rame.net> schreef in bericht
>
>> That's just not true. Our charter would be one-line long then: "No spam."
>> But, instead, our charter has a lot of areas where interpretations are
>> called into play.
>> We made the offer in an earlier thread, and we will make it again: do you
>> want to join the MOD team; help balance out all of us "pathetic SFBs"?
>
>I want robot moderation. I want freedom of expression for anyone
>who wants to put up a thread that isn't an immediate simple sollicitation
>for debt refinancing, lolita sex or some phone line.
>That's all.
Here here. The charter that Jeff speaks of is hardly a democratic
document in that about 5 people determine the rules of engagement
Even excepting flame wars, there are too many threads that get
squashed pure out of moderator boredom of having to read so many
replies.
>
>See alt.true-crime and alt.gossip.celebrities for successful examples.
>
>When moderators start sifting through the posts as to
>what topics are acceptable, they start choking off popular
>groups such as RAME once was.
This is why dozens of former readers quit monitoring the group
>
Torris
C3ppL
<tor...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "Adult Movie FAQ" <f...@rame.net> schreef in bericht
>>
>>> That's just not true. Our charter would be one-line long then: "No
>>> spam."
>>> But, instead, our charter has a lot of areas where interpretations are
>>> called into play.
>>> We made the offer in an earlier thread, and we will make it again: do
>>> you
>>> want to join the MOD team; help balance out all of us "pathetic SFBs"?
>>
Naaah, bitchin' about things is easier. ;)
>> I want robot moderation. I want freedom of expression for anyone
>> who wants to put up a thread that isn't an immediate simple
>> sollicitation
>> for debt refinancing, lolita sex or some phone line.
>> That's all.
Simply not allowing x-posting would keep 90%+ of the crap out.
> Even excepting flame wars, there are too many threads that get
> squashed pure out of moderator boredom of having to read so many
> replies.
>>
>> See alt.true-crime and alt.gossip.celebrities for successful examples.
>>
>> When moderators start sifting through the posts as to
>> what topics are acceptable, they start choking off popular
>> groups such as RAME once was.
>
> This is why dozens of former readers quit monitoring the group
I am a long time NG particant of other moderated groups, at none of them do
the moderators moderate based on "does this belong in this thread?". That's
just silly. I'd say moderate for abusive behavior and flame wars only, and
even that with a light hand. That is needed, for some reason sex forums
bring out the Neanderthals that like to abuse women and men, but especially
women. Mods, you can always give it a test run. You know the the locals
will rattle their cages again if they dont like it. Just a thought. Since
moderating has not fullfilled it's original intent of making this space
safe for female porn gals, why not?
That said, moderating is underapreciated and thank you for the chance to
vent a little.
going back to lurk mode
>
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Anonymous
> >> Any criticism or comments I direct to Brandy Alexander and her
> >> comments on RAME is automatically rejected each and every time.
> >
> >Probably because that's all you do. It has been accepted as
> >default
> >that if I posted something, you will have a criticism about it,
> >therefore there is no need to actually post it.
>
> I went to deja news and did a search under tor...@mindspring.com;
> for however long they've been archiving messages, I have posted
> 4718 messages to RAME. Of those, 208 mentioned Brandy somewhere
> in the text. That amounts to 4.5%.
The original Brandy Conjecture is: "if [Brandy] posted something,
[then Torris] will have a criticism about it". Or, "100% of Torris'
Brandy-post followups are critical."
The Brandy Conjecture was not proved but comparing your Brandy-posts
to your total-posts (4.5%) is the wrong way to DISprove it. You
need to ignore everything not Brandy related and then figure
out how many your follow ups to Brandy-posts are negatively
critical.
And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to my statistical
study of the number and distribution of pimples on Belladonna's
ass. I can't wait for HD video.
Mike Lesser
<Godot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snips>
> I do too. They keep flaming to a minimum. Keep spam
> to a minimum and whenever one of my posts is rejected
> I try to frame it in a way that it relates mostly
> to the spirit of rec.arts.movies.erotica.
>
>
I agree for the most part, but there still seems to be something amiss.
Let me elaborate:
I'm an infrequent (at most a couple times a year) poster. I've never
flamed anyone, never got into a racial thing, never been OT, blah blah
blah. In AFAIK, there's no reason anyone would even notice me, let
alone censor me.
About 2 weeks ago I added to a couple threads.
One was a question about birth control. Someone posted that
Depo-Provera shots are available, and I replied that there are now Depo
implants as well. That's basically it. The thread continued on for a
bit, with a few comments about periods and such, but without my
posting.
Item next: I started a thread about DVD problems, asking basically, did
others have difficulty with their adult DVDs not playing back properly.
Given the number of retailer, shipping, and return-policy questions
I've seen, I think this is on-topic. Never appeared.
Finally, I added a big posting to the "Howard Stern & Porn" thread. A
few people had posted saying they thought Howard was abusive, and I put
in an (admittedly long-winded) reply about how I thought it was
interesting and relevant that many of the show regulars talked about
how they had crappy lives and ended up in porn. Maybe not the most fun
posting, but IMHO, relevant. [In fact, given the number of posts that
are deliberately insulting to the actors (often directly), I can't
imagine that this would be considered too negative to the group or
something like that.] Again, the thread never appeared.
I have to conclude that I've been added to a kill list for some unknown
reason, without any kind of feedback whatsoever. Is it a technical
thing? I have a generic Earthlink account, never used a remailer
(wouldn't know how), I've always used my real first name. What the
dilly-yo?
Mike
--
remove the obvious to reply by email
Edward Bonaventure
->I belong to a couple of web-based discussion groups and the freedom
->is much better there. There are not a lot of flames because people
->police themselves on them pretty well. Just don't reply to a flamer
->and he (or she) will go away.
The poster may be right about more "freedom" in other, unmoderated
forums, but in my opinion the rest is sheer fantasy. The phrase
"people police themselves pretty well" is not an accurate description
of the thousands of unmoderated Usenet newsgroups. And no, flamers
and troublemakers do NOT go away by themselves! When unhindered,
they'll rant on and on forever.
This thread is getting a bit long in the tooth, but I'd like to
put in a good word for the moderators and the great job they've been
doing. For the benefit of any RAME readers who don't look at unmod-
erated newsgroups, let me say that you don't know how good you have
it here!
As for robomoderation, I doubt it would work here. The subject
matter is too sensitive, and there are enemies of the adult world
lurking out there who would flood this newsgroup with porn-bashing
and proselytizing if the moderators were out of the way. Also,
posters with cultural biases or other bones to pick would cause
unappetising or controversial threads to go on without end.
Then there's "thread drift," where commentary wanders from the
topic, causing subject headers to become a totally useless part of
the Usenet anatomy. Not to mention sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-quotes
five or ten layers deep; and posters who don't know how to edit so
their "quotes" are hundreds of lines long, to which they add a
single line of commentary. These are all common phenomena that can
be seen every day all over the Usenet. A robomoderator would keep
out most spam advertisements, but there's more to the job than that.
Only the human moderators can do it right.
--
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
>>> david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo <<<
>>> Censornati, Ohio - USA <<<
>>>----------------------------------------------<<<
* REALITY.SYS corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q) *
(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)
Mike Lesser
> >I have to conclude that I've been added to a kill list for some unknown
> >reason, without any kind of feedback whatsoever. Is it a technical
> >thing? I have a generic Earthlink account, never used a remailer
> >(wouldn't know how), I've always used my real first name. What the
> >dilly-yo?
>
> [MOD: We've also been experiencing problems with Earthlink not sending us
> posts -- Frank]
>
Yeah, Earthlink doesn't seem to get this whole usenet thing, so I'm not
surprised. I think they'd be happier if it went away, along with IRC
and everything that's not http. Thx Frank.
<snippage>
Yeah - I didn't mean to really rant at the mods. In person it would
have sounded polite! I have a problem being long-winded and wanting to
talk out all issues. It's looking like it was purely technical or
something like that. The last few posts have shown up no problem. I
apologize if offended anyone.
[MOD: No offense taken. Hell, if you want to read "long-winded", look up
some of my posts in the archives. :-) -- Frank]
Torris Bin Drinken
wrote:
>Torris Bin Drinken wrote:
>
>> >> Any criticism or comments I direct to Brandy Alexander and her
>> >> comments on RAME is automatically rejected each and every time.
>> >
>> >Probably because that's all you do. It has been accepted as
>> >default
>> >that if I posted something, you will have a criticism about it,
>> >therefore there is no need to actually post it.
>>
>> I went to deja news and did a search under tor...@mindspring.com;
>> for however long they've been archiving messages, I have posted
>> 4718 messages to RAME. Of those, 208 mentioned Brandy somewhere
>> in the text. That amounts to 4.5%.
>
>The original Brandy Conjecture is: "if [Brandy] posted something,
>[then Torris] will have a criticism about it". Or, "100% of Torris'
>Brandy-post followups are critical."
As a humanities major, I guess that was my clumsy attempt to counter
act Brandy's assertion that I am obsessed with her. I was pointing out
quite the contray.
And as to every Brandy related post being critical, so what. I'm
equally as hard (no pun) on guys like Dave Cummings and Tony Tedeschi
and the Vivid flesh mannequins. And when I see someone I like I'm
equally ready to praise their merits
Torris