BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Moderation requests & discussion thereof

 
  

Page: 1 ... 4647484950(51)5253545556... 95

 
 
pony
12:30 / 03.09.06
(i presume that question isn't redirected towards me, seeing as i haven't said anything about the deletion issue...)
 
 
Shrug
12:33 / 03.09.06
Shouldn't proposition of deletion hinge on a question of hatespeech vs. insult? Hatespeech being eminently deletable, insult not so. By which case I don't think it should be deleted. I'm hither and thither on what to actually do or if something needs to be done at all, really. But I still find this behaviour unsavory and worrisome in the extreme.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:44 / 03.09.06
I think unsavory is perfectly reasonable. I think that protesting it is perfectly reasonable. If you feel it is appropriate, I think that posting to a thread in the Policy, or starting a new one, is perfectly reasonable. What is not perfctly reasonable is moving to delete. As such, I think Flyboy was put in a basically impossible situation. If I were him, I would have skipped the moderation request, but I would be aware that in doing so I could be accused of passing on a bad moderator action in order to preserve my own reputation for disinterested moderation. It's tricky.

(i presume that question isn't redirected towards me, seeing as i haven't said anything about the deletion issue...)

Have a look at the thread title, League. Discussion here is taken to be about moderation requests.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:45 / 03.09.06
Haus, sorry comrade, but to me your last but one post seems to completely ignore how out of order Flyboy and Triplets were yesterday. Offering Flyboy the option to simply ignore DM, and then putting all the onus on DM to think about how he's posting...? Seems a little disproportionate to me.

Yes, the animosity has got out of hand, but it's animosity on the part of Flyboy and Triplets, in this instance, which needs to be rectified by them. DM did not go bat shit and start throwing insults in personal threads, and when faced with such snidey comments he was actually remarkably calm, under the circumstances. Sure, in the past he might have been a bit ignorant and/or cocky, but he hasn't said anything lately about people being unworthy of (e.g) having people post nice comments about them in a Birthday thread, or being the failure of an abortionist.

Do you think Flyboy and Triplets should apologise? I think they should. Why the hell should anyone get away with that time of sheer nastiness?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:46 / 03.09.06
(Sorry, Haus, I cross-posted; I meant, your last but two post)
 
 
Char Aina
12:49 / 03.09.06
i agree.
if someone seems to be accusing someone else of rape it's quite likely the conversation will go badly.

do you disagree?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:49 / 03.09.06
Do you think Flyboy and Triplets should apologise? I think they should. Why the hell should anyone get away with that time of sheer nastiness?

Yes, I do. And? Do you think that that will resolve the entire problem once and for all? Or do you suggest that we just start moving to delete anything that we think is mean from now on? Only, this thread is the "Moderation Requests Thread", not the "Requesting apologies thread". I'm trying to keep this ontopic and relevant to the discussion of moderator actions.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:51 / 03.09.06
Then why did you post about it in here, then?

This issue won't even start to be resolved until they apologise.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:52 / 03.09.06
i agree.
if someone seems to be accusing someone else of rape it's quite likely the conversation will go badly.

do you disagree?


Well, toksik, how far does "seems" go, here? Is it everyone else's responsibility to assume that the person who asked the question might not actually read the answer? Could Flyboy at this point tell us that he thought DM "seemed" to be calling his mother a whore earlier in the thread, because he had not read it properly, and thus that he was entirely justified?
 
 
Char Aina
12:54 / 03.09.06
i would expect an apology that showed they understood what was wrong with their bahaviour, and gave us some idea that it wouldnt continue to be a problem.

if not, can we just call it harrasment and ban them?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:59 / 03.09.06
Then why did you post about it in here, then?

Because it's relevant to future moderation actions, especially the prevention of bad ones if people are not able to work out if and when moderation is appropriate.

toksik - I suggest that you think about the word "harrassment", how it is used on Barbelith to describe actions based on attacks on people based on their gender, sexuality or race, and think more carefully about how you plan to use it in the future. If you want to start a banning thread, that's your right, but I am happy to tell you here that it would at this stage be such an eccentric reaction that I would probably see it as a referendum on your competence as a moderator.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:02 / 03.09.06
Back on one rude thing being now apparently a banning offence, how about this?? As a Christian, I find the phrase "Christ fucking his mother on prime time television" very offensive. I find the previous page of the thread, in which DM is repeatedly enjoined to take the minimum steps necessarily to have his opinion of an article by bell hooks in any way at risk of adding value to the thread - that is, reading it - and gets ruder and ruder in his refusal either to do so or to stop posting about it? His use of (quoted) racial epithets to make a point is pretty nasty, as well. This ended with alas, ten times voted Barbelith's most reasonable, suggesting that this behaviour of DM's would, if he continued it, lead to his banning, here.

Since then, careful management has wrung an undertaking actually to read threads and material referenced in threads, which, if it is managed, goes a long way to addressing my concerns, and after which I have worked on being nice to him, in spite of his return to the ranks of those editorialising without evidence about me here, his flippant and impolite response to correction here, and indeed the goading in his birthday thread.

So, can we bring this discussion back to moderation requests, and explain to me precisely what was so special about the posts moved for deletion in that thread? That it was a birthday thread? Is there a special status for birthday threads that I have not previously been aware of? Flyboy and Triplets were rude - actually, Triplets was much ruder, but Flyboy is a more visible poster and DM has focused on him - and as private members anyone is free to upbraid them for it. Tell me where the moderator actions come in here.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
13:08 / 03.09.06
Maybe the moderators could actually try to deal with each instance of nastiness individually? Maybe they could PM all offending posters and ask their fellow members for an apology when it is needed? Maybe they could stop trying to put the blame onto the victim? Maybe they could agree that Birthday Threads are nice things for nice people, and shouldn't be ruined by a loud, agressive, and rude insults?
 
 
pony
13:10 / 03.09.06
i'm sorry to be the dude that just shows up in Policy to watch the drama and play devil's advocate, but i'm pretty sure most people would agree that DM's "goading" in his birthday thread really seemed a lot more like playful extension of the olive branch, a "come on in and lets set our differences aside, it's a party", than anything mean-spirited.
 
 
Ganesh
13:12 / 03.09.06
I think the posts in question were not only hugely unpleasant and inappropriate, but were manifestly off-topic; the thread's purpose was to celebrate someone's birthday, not to talk about how much one disliked them or reflect on how they should've been aborted. Okay, it's the Conversation, but I maintain that that particular combination of uncalled-for personalised savagery and off-topicness added up, in that particular circumstance, to a sum-of-parts worth moving for deletion.
 
 
Ganesh
13:17 / 03.09.06
Ganesh, I don't think worth to the board is as nebulous as you think. One could, for example, look at engagement with threads, level of ontopic posting, contribution to the parts of Barbelith that make it different from other Internet bulletin boards (see in particular the Revolution fora) - just to select a few examples.

One could also look at the genesis of offtopic animus and personalised insult, and base overall 'worth' around that particular dimension. It's certainly possible to form an opinion of someone's worth to the board; I don't think that necessarily translates into anything more widespread or objective - not without more widespread discussion, anyway.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:27 / 03.09.06
Maybe they could stop trying to put the blame onto the victim?

Yah. OK. PW, you're not really going to be profitable to talk with about this one until you stop making emotional editorial. Sorry. I think you have some interesting ideas, which might be discussed in another thread, but right now, sorry.

Ganesh: Well, offtopic threads are not deleted in the conversation. So, no, that's not a reasonable argument. If you want to change that, then we can talk about changing that, but right now that argument, unless you can give me precedent, is not convincing. So, we're coming down to deleting posts because two or three moderators think that they should be deleted - because they don't like the content of the post. Is that what you are arguing for? If so, then the role of moderator has fundamentally shifted: it has become a role where posts can be moved for deletion effectively due to a personal unhappiness with what they say. If that is to be the case, that's cool, but I think we need to talk with Tom about it, look at the people who are currently moderators and probably reduce the numbers of moderators (and to balance, increase their powers - effectively, make distributed moderation a tone rather than a process), or increase the number of vote approvals required, which will in turn mean a change to how quickly posts can be moderated or will require a greater number of moderators. This is not policy that can be made on the fly, as it were.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
13:29 / 03.09.06
Is there a special status for birthday threads that I have not previously been aware of?

Haus, if I were to turn up to your Birthday Thread and hurl rude, off-topic, personal insults at you, would you agree that this is out of order? Wouldn't you expect an apology afterwards, or would the fact that you might have said something offensive once or thrice to me in other non-birthday threads mean I can call you whatever I like and get away with it, and that others can defend my right to do so? (not that you have insulted me, of course, 'tis hypothetical)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:32 / 03.09.06
but i'm pretty sure most people would agree that DM's "goading" in his birthday thread really seemed a lot more like playful extension of the olive branch, a "come on in and lets set our differences aside, it's a party", than anything mean-spirited.

Interesting. Why is that? Would it be because that's what you think? What Dead Megatron has subsequently said? Because you weren't mentioned by him? In fact, aren't you blaming the victims here? What makes you see that in the line:

Where's Haus, goddamnit?????

After the injuntion to Flyboy to "dance, puppet, dance!"? That reads to me as if I am being lumped in with Flyboy, which given that Flyboy has apparently in the eyes of some, including DM, performed an offence worthy of banning I would not be very happy with, and being commanded to come to the thread to entertain Dead Megatron. And, since I am the victim here, my opinion is apparently the one that counts.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:39 / 03.09.06
Haus, if I were to turn up to your Birthday Thread and hurl rude, off-topic, personal insults at you, would you agree that this is out of order?

Yes. I would express that opinion. I would not expect the moderators to delete it, and I would not demand that you be banned. If anyone else suggested that you should be banned, I would disagree. When you, offtopic, called me a posh tit and told me to fuck off, IIRC, I did not expect the moderators to intervene or for anyone to take up my cause in a policy thread about moderator actions. That might have been on my birthday, of course: I don't tend to make a big thing of it.

So, once again - why is this a moderator issue? Why are you talking about it in a thread called "Moderation Requests Thread"? Would you like, possibly, to take it somewhere else - as I see you are already starting to by taking the fight to Flyboy in the "Your Watch" thread, which I'm sure is a great relief to everyone who was planning to use that thread for its stated purpose?
 
 
Ganesh
13:41 / 03.09.06
Ganesh: Well, offtopic threads are not deleted in the conversation. So, no, that's not a reasonable argument. If you want to change that, then we can talk about changing that, but right now that argument, unless you can give me precedent, is not convincing.

To me, the combination of highly personalised insult plus offtopicness amounted to a reasonable case for at least bringing up the possibility of deletion. In fact, I think the off-topic nature actually adds to the overall inappropriateness of that level of straightforward ad hominem unpleasantness.

So, we're coming down to deleting posts because two or three moderators think that they should be deleted - because they don't like the content of the post. Is that what you are arguing for? If so, then the role of moderator has fundamentally shifted: it has become a role where posts can be moved for deletion effectively due to a personal unhappiness with what they say.

I think it's about that content being solely ad hominem and the specific positioning of the posts compounding that. I fully accept that it's controversial to agree deletion on that principle, and I can see why others disagreed or skipped the request. At the time, the fact that these comments had been dropped into such an inappropriate thread made me (and, I think, Falconator) want to act quickly. In sober retrospect, I think it would probably have been more reasonable to start a new Policy thread, cut & paste them there and then move for deletion.

If that is to be the case, that's cool, but I think we need to talk with Tom about it, look at the people who are currently moderators and probably reduce the numbers of moderators (and to balance, increase their powers - effectively, make distributed moderation a tone rather than a process), or increase the number of vote approvals required, which will in turn mean a change to how quickly posts can be moderated or will require a greater number of moderators.

I've always tended toward the latter option.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
13:45 / 03.09.06
Interesting. Why is that? Would it be because that's what you think? What Dead Megatron has subsequently said? Because you weren't mentioned by him? In fact, aren't you blaming the victims here?

Haus there's a difference. DM has not told you that you are unworthy or the failure of an abortionist, he's invited you and Flyboy (who, yes, have both had arguably valid problems with him in the past) to come and play nicely, just this once. His comment could be read as a jibe or a playful smile. Flyboy's and Triplets' comments, however, are faaaar less ambiguous.

When DM's out of order, people say something and expect him to try and recify the situation. Why not Flyboy and Triplets? Because DM's been a bit of a dick in the past? I think, Haus, you are complicating something that is actually quite simple. When people are so personal and nasty, they should apologise sincerely and then we can all move on. If a problem between two posters persists then they should maybe start a specific thread or take it to PM's, not walk into each other's Birthday threads and start insulting them.

And Haus, please don't fob my posts of as emotional, that's really cheep, and I believe I apolgised to you for calliing you a name all those months ago. Let's not confuse events, eh?

Also, Haus, maybe you should read my comments in this thread about what I think of deleting posts? And who actually called for a ban?


Would you like, possibly, to take it somewhere else - as I see you are already starting to by taking the fight to Flyboy in the "Your Watch" thread, which I'm sure is a great relief to everyone who has planning to use that thread for its stated purpose?

Haus, stop trying to take the blame away from Flyboy an Triplets. They were out of order. When I'm out of order, or at least when I realise I've been out of order, I apologise.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:47 / 03.09.06
The topic was Dead Megatron's birthday. I shared my feelings on the topic. The number of times someone has had an off-topic, "animus"-fuelled pop at, say, Haus, and not had their posts deleted, needs hardly be brought up again, does it? Or are we going with good old paranoidwriter's "Birthday threads are special and nice!" after all?

Ganesh, going back to your post earlier, then I was indeed goading reidcourchie to start a thread about having a moderator removed - because I was confident he could not make a convincing case for that, and was talking shit. I don't know why you think I'd deny that.

Let's run through some things I'm not going to do.

Exchanging PMs with Dead Megatron is about as appealing a prospect as becoming penpals with Chris Moyles. Why on Earth would I want to enter into such an unedifying correspondence? No.

I haven't started a thread about him, because - well, I'm not sure what sort of thread it's being suggested I should start. I don't believe that it would be possible at this point to build a case for Dead Megatron to be banned based on his posts on Barbelith thus far, especially given how slow and equivocal the process of banning much more clearly offensive people has been. Looking at Haus' post above (the one that links to the bell hooks incident) and the reaction to it ("Birthday threads should be nice!"), it seems pretty clear to me that such a thread would be a re-enactment of the trial of Jack McCall. No.

So the alternative would seem to be for me to start a thread detailing the sustained low-level idiocy punctuated by moments of out-and-out jaw-dropping wilful stupidity and fucked-up attitudes that has characterised DM's posts since he joined the board, ranging from forms of stupidity which are just head-slapping (aesthetic), to ones which are outright dangerous and harmful (political) - and unlike some people I see no evidence that he has changed, only that he has become a little more aware of what he can and can't get away with, which is not the same thing - merely to explain why seeing his name on the board gives me hives. I've been tempted, believe you me - I think "Has Dead Megatron ever posted anything of worth to the board?" would be the title, and the question still stands. But would the situation we find ourselves in now be any different? Would I really have avoided the calls for that to deleted, for me to be stripped of my moderator powers, banned, etc.? No.

So, what I did do, then, was to try to make it clear to DM - at a time when he has recently been given a form of validation which he would benefit not him, nor Kali, nor anyone else in the world who ever has to encounter him, but especially not the people of this board who aspire to it becoming anything better than a Maxim messageboard - that there are some people here who are not happy with him being on the board if he carries on posting as he has done for the past year. Now, it seems that this may have been ill-advised, strategically, and may have upset a significant number of people. For that, I apologise.

If anyone does think that as a result of my behaviour towards Dead Megatron, I should be either banned or removed as a moderator, then make the case, and I suppose the outcome will give us some pretty clear pointers as to what kind of place Barbelith wants to be.

Two other things:

I'm glad DM has mentioned the Transformers movie thread. It's a good example of how he has helped reduce the general standard of discussion just by his very presence on threads. He didn't provide a link, though. I wonder if that could be because to describe my behaviour as "abusive" and his as "responding in a difusing-the-bomb kinda way, showing respect and trying not to escalate things" would be revealed as, well, total utter bullshit if anyone actually read the last three pages of the thread? For example, here, I make a point about the madness of 33's view that it is some kind of travesty to turn alien robots into... alien robots. Not even directed at DM, then. DM's response?

Still with the sarcasm, boy?

If that's not goading then I don't know what is.

Secondly, I'd prefer it if people didn't link me in with Triplets as if we were somehow in cahoots - I'm sure he can answer for his own distinct behaviour just as I will answer for mine. I think the basic problem with his post was a failure to understand what an abortionist does...
 
 
illmatic
13:47 / 03.09.06
Do you think Flyboy and Triplets should apologise? I think they should. Why the hell should anyone get away with that time of sheer nastiness?

Yes, I do.


Me also. I feel that both Triplets and Flyboy have been particulary out of line in this instance and I want to register my annoyance. Also, I do think it's worthwhile discussing in this thread as i) it spun off moderation requests ii) more generally, the Policy threads are for the big ongoing conversation Barbelith has about itself, attempting to agree norms about what is or isn't acceptable behaviour.
 
 
pony
13:48 / 03.09.06
"Why is that? Would it be because that's what you think"

yes, Haus. i'm stating that i think something because it's "what i think", much like you state the things "that you think" because you "think them". i know that this sort of ambiguation is a favorite tactic of yours, but please take a step back from trying to win and attend to the issues at hand, because if there's anything we don't need, it's another day of out-of-line mods get all worked up about the fact that the n00bs are ruining everything they're spent the past 5 years building...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:52 / 03.09.06
Well, yes, league. My point is that what you think is not actually supported by what Dead Megatron wrote. That may be because Dead Megatron expressed himself badly, or it may be because you have interpreted events in a particular way to fit your model, or because I have misread it. However, I have quoted what he actually did say and have explained why it seemed not to match what you believed it said. You have not done so. This is not _simply_ a matter of opinion, league. People have written things which can be read and interpreted.
 
 
Shrug
13:52 / 03.09.06
I've started a further thread, should anyone feel it more appropriate to continue discussion there, if not let it sink, rename, or delete.
 
 
Ganesh
13:54 / 03.09.06
Exchanging PMs with Dead Megatron is about as appealing a prospect as becoming penpals with Chris Moyles. Why on Earth would I want to enter into such an unedifying correspondence?

In order to actively address the fact that you strongly dislike him, in a way that a) allows one-to-one dialogue free from any potentially escalatory playing-to-the-gallery element, and b) doesn't taint other threads with that dislike. Your reason for not countenancing this option seems, to me, to amount to "because I don't want to because I don't like him", which is somewhat circular.

Haven't you ever done this with posters with whom you've clashed on the board? I agree it's often not an appealling prospect, but depending on what one actually wants to achieve, it's arguably more likely to bear fruit than dropping that dislike into an essentially unrelated thread.
 
 
pony
14:00 / 03.09.06
"People have written things which can be read and interpreted."

yeah, they have. i (and others, including at lease one on this page of this thread) have chosen to read his comments in one way, while you quite clearly disagree. i fail to see the part where you explained via close textual analysis that your opinion was unquestionable.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:02 / 03.09.06
Yeti, I'll be sure not to engage in a PM conversation with you again since you clearly feel free applying them across barbelith rather than attributing them to one person. Since no one else knows, Yeti is directly discussing a conversation we had yesterday when referring to "5 years building". Despite the fact that I clearly stated I was talking about antipathy rather than anything else he's clearly decided to apply, not the antipathy but his perceived notion that we were united as a group in our flippancy rather than reaching boiling point coincidentally at the same time. Obviously we're such a clique that I am but a mouthpiece for the collective.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:03 / 03.09.06
Paranoidwriter, I'm not trying to take the blame away from anyone. If you want to demonstrate what I am doing, please quote and then describe your understanding of what what I have said means. I will then be able to explain whether or not you are right.

What I am doing is trying to keep this thread ontopic, and point out some of the more obvious double standards.

And who actually called for a ban?

Dead Megatron suggested it as a possible response in the thread, toksik proposed it above as a possible action. Have a read.

he's invited you and Flyboy (who, yes, have both had arguably valid problems with him in the past) to come and play nicely, just this once

Nope. I don't see that. I have quoted what he wrote above, and how it reads. Perhaps you could go back to what he actually wrote, rather than relying on the gloss he subsequently put on it. Thanks.

To be honest, I thought Triplets was joking - that is, that he was making a "roast"-style gag laughing both at and with DM. I don't know whether that is the case or not, because he has not yet spoken about it. Which makes the fact that he is being put forward as a candidate for banning pretty odd. However, I haven't been on Barbelith for a while, so I don't know what Triplets has been doing re: Dead Megatron lately.

And Haus, please don't fob my posts of as emotional, that's really cheep, and I believe I apolgised to you for calliing you a name all those months ago.

Indeed. Some time after you had done it, during which time apparently you could have been accused of harrassment and put forward as a candidate for banning. If you'd rather, though - I apologise if you felt I was fobbing your posts off as emotional. I am telling you that you are apparently not reading what I or other people are writing, and assuming that this is because you _are_ emotional. If there is another reason for it, please address that instead.

Right. I have to go and have tea, so will come back to this later. Try not to do anything silly while I'm away, everyone? Thanks, chaps.
 
 
illmatic
14:05 / 03.09.06
Exchanging PMs with Dead Megatron is about as appealing a prospect as becoming penpals with Chris Moyles.

I did the same with Megatron actually, a while back, spinning off from the Fem 101 thread. I don't know what effect this has had on his restraint from posting or depth of engagement with topics. I'm sure a few people would argue "not much". But it enables me to see him as human and not MY ENEMY and got me over the complete failure of goodwill that I see in your posts about him. I suspect this is what got people's backs up about yours and Triplets comments - seeing ill intention in a space where they might expect to see something different. I found the comments about as attractive as seeing a pile of puke in the road.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:08 / 03.09.06
Haus- not wishing to speak for anyone, and of course this is merely my own interpretation, but I didn't read toksik as seriously calling for a ban- to me, it read more like a reductio ad absurdum (absurdum? absurdam?)
 
 
pony
14:17 / 03.09.06
Nadezhda Krupskaya- i just want to state for the record that i had several pm exchanges with people yesterday, including more than one mod. the 'five years' comment was really just a reflection of a troubling tendency i've noticed popping up in the past couple months among some the 'old guard/barbelite/whatever', and that was reinforced through yesterday's crap... i apologize for using you words, it wasn't purposeful.
 
 
Char Aina
14:19 / 03.09.06

toksik - I suggest that you think about the word "harrassment", how it is used on Barbelith to describe actions based on attacks on people based on their gender, sexuality or race, and think more carefully about how you plan to use it in the future. If you wasnt to start a banning thread, that's your right, but I am happy to tell you here that it would at this stage be such an eccentric reaction that I would probably see it as a referendum on your competence as a moderator.



harrasment covers abusing somone even if not based upon their gender, race, or sexuality, and i feel that to suggest it doesnt on barbelith is to make barbelith appear an ass.

if the abuse continued and continued to be of the 'abortionist' calibre, i would suggest a thread on the necessity to ban the poster responsible would be less of a referendum on my moderator status than you say.
if you want to start a thread to discuss my worth as a moderator, that is your right, but i am moved to tell you here that it would at this stage be such an eccentric reaction that i would probably see it as a referendum on your own competence as a moderator.

in my opinion triplets doesnt require banning at this point. neither does flyboy.
i think they could do well to address their approach to other posters, though, and have said as much.

there would only be a need to start a banning thread(something i didnt mention doing, incidentally) if it continued.
i am confident that this discussion will make that far less likely.



on seems;
seems is a squidgy broadness, sure.
the clause 'you may very well have raped someone' is pretty damn likely to cause the rapid deployment of your interlocutors defensive shields, though, yeah? wouldnt you say?

the fact that it was preceded by an 'if';
if you have never asked a woman you've actually had sex with what she enjoys, what she would like, how she likes to be touched,
and was itself a 'then';
then you may very well have raped someone
does change the meaning.
i dont think it's entirely unpredictable that someone will misread that, though. uness one feels it is likely that DM has never asked any questions, i dont get why one would phrase it like that, as doing so is likely to slow the understanding of what seems to me a point worth making regarding consent.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 4647484950(51)5253545556... 95

 
  
Add Your Reply