The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Draft Outing Policy
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:09 PM Author: Dark station Please contribute to this.
Version 1:
No outing policy. The very idea is stupid. If posters don't wish the board to know their real-life identities, they should damn well keep it a secret themselves.
Version 2:
"Under no circumstances may a poster allege or imply that a particular person is responsible for any XOXO content (specific or otherwise) whatsoever. Failure to abide by this policy will result in banning in all instances and deletion of the offending post, with no exceptions." Pros: Bright line. Cons: Draconian.
Version 3:
"A poster may not allege that any XOXO content (specific or general) was produced by any particular person unless such inference might readily be reasonably made by a frequent participant of the board. Failure to abide by this policy will result in banning and deletion of the offending post unless circumstances indicate that the offending poster made a good faith effort to abide by the policy." Pros: Tracks current board policy relatively well. Cons: Subject to interpretation by mods/admins. |
 |
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:11 PM Author: Canary Digit Ratio You really wasted time writing this shit up? Just leave this board. www.bigchangesboard.com does everything this board does, but better, and you don't have to put up with all this bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7695603) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:35 PM Author: wonderful shimmering chapel i thought bigchangesboard had even more moderation than this place. wasn't that the whole point of creating it? to moderate away all the tiresome racism and spam? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7695788) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:36 PM Author: Dark station Yes, of course bigchangesboard has more moderation. I don't know what the other poster was trying to say. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7695798) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:37 PM Author: Canary Digit Ratio You are wrong. www.bigchangesboard.com is superior to xoxo in every way imaginable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7695803) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:39 PM Author: cobalt ape I call strawman
I support the approach that if anyone is outed, either by themselves or by others, any posts/threads with the information should be deleted. Xo is based on anonymity, without it the board would not work. |
|
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:42 PM Author: wonderful shimmering chapel i agree with this. short and sweet, less need for discretion.
edit: i think self-outing is fine and even valuable -- posting what school you attend, for example, is a partial outing and yet is very important in a variety of contexts. same with which firm you work for, which city you live in, etc. I've posted my proposal below. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:00 AM Author: Dark station Enforced anonymity. That's an interesting idea.
I'm also concerned, though, about posts that don't actually out someone, but strongly connect a real-world person with an XO poster. Should people be able to say, for example, that a poster is a blond Brooklyn graduate who works at S&C? There's probably only one, and he'd be easy to find.
There are many examples similar to this. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:17 AM Author: Federal Aromatic Dragon Locus Ding, we have a winner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696036) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:06 PM Author: adventurous french chef TITCR.
No names. Never. If there is a question that it's someones name or there is enough personally-identifiable information, then something should be done. If it turns out later that it wasn't the person, reisntate the post (although these types of attempted outings have little or no value anyway so no loss if you don't reinstate).
Mods should not be "exercising judgment" or "implementing a [complex or nuanced] policy". They should protect xoxo users, from later regret (self outings) or unwanted harassment (nonself outings).
Why self outings? bc there is no reason for a person to use their name. And because this makes it a blanket rule that makes the mods' job *very* easy.
HTFH |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 6:23 PM Author: laughsome bossy school cafeteria feces That's right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7699961) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 4:06 AM Author: Black Casino Selfie Winner. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7705755) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2007 1:26 AM Author: Gold Flirting Giraffe Base How likely is it that this will be implemented? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7720775) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:57 PM Author: Heady Internet-worthy Sweet Tailpipe version 1 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7695906) |
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:36 PM Author: charismatic duck-like foreskin version 1 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7695797) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2007 11:58 PM Author: brass mental disorder Need a rule on those self-outing. That seems to be where the issue was before. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7695910) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:05 AM Author: Dark station I'm having trouble figuring out just what a self outing is. I made a stab at it above in version #3.
I'm not sure how always to distinguish between situations where people out themselves and situations where they merely (perhaps over the course of months or years) posted personal information that, when taken together, identifies them. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:05 AM Author: wonderful shimmering chapel i'd say:
1. don't out anyone except yourself. this includes posting any identifying information about the person at all. if you do, your post or thread will be deleted or redacted immediately. 2. if you run afoul of rule 1 and bad faith is obvious to the casual observer, your account is deactivated. (IP banning is a bad idea for a number of reasons.) this is the only rule that requires any discretion. 3. if you've been outed, which includes someone posting any identifying information about you at all, you can request for it to be deleted and it will be. it doesn't matter whether you've outed people or whether the you made the information available in the first place. it's a bright-line rule with no substantial discretion needed. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:07 AM Author: Dark station The tit-for-tat outing rule that we have today is clearly intolerable, I agree.
Does your suggestion not allow compiling personal information posted by a poster, though? If not, how extreme is it? Is it OK if I say that Hazelrah attends CLS, for example? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:08 AM Author: wonderful shimmering chapel if Hazelrah objects to you saying that for some reason, like he's trying to phase that piece of information out of the common knowledge, the post gets deleted or redacted. there'd certainly be no bad faith obvious to the casual observer, so there would be no further penalty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7695979) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:24 AM Author: low-t laser beams And who's going to enforce all this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696088) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:28 AM Author: wonderful shimmering chapel you and rach, i guess, if the board remains so adamantly opposed to the concept of mods. personally i think mods make sense, so long as you keep tabs on them and do not give them access to IP addresses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696109) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:50 AM Author: vivacious cream hall potus This is going to get pretty unworkable. What kind of info would it encompass? What if I decide I don't want people saying what my practice area is? My political ideology? What I think of the smoke monster on Lost? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696554) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:30 AM Author: wonderful shimmering chapel i think the line would be brighter in practice than in theory, and anyway the subject of the post has to object to the information. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696715) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:19 AM Author: mauve indirect expression #1 is a horrible idea. you should want to encourage people to share info about themselves, not discourage it. knowing what school a person goes to or where he/she lives makes them a more valuable poster. many people ask me about fordham, either on the board dirctly or by emailing me. if this was considered 'self-outting' then this whole element of usefulness would disappear.
what's wrong with, you out a poster, your IP address gets posted, as well as the other monikers that share that IP address? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:22 AM Author: Shivering alpha native Agreed that #1 is bad, because one of the most appealing things about this forum is that many posters convey a strong sense of identity, and that simply can't be the case in #1.
Revealing an outer's IP, however, isn't too useful if someone uses a proxy or shields their true IP through some other device. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:26 AM Author: mauve indirect expression i also think #1 is bad because I - and some other people, i think - started posting before we realized that other people actually cared about outting, and I, personally, never gave it a second thought. Now, obviously, I'm worried about it. It seems overly cruel to say to someone like me, sorry, you posted the information, it led to your outting, now you're fucked. it's clearly caveat emptor over here, but there does need to be some level of protection.
i'm not aware of various IP-masking things one can do. I do think that a tit-for-tat policy makes the most sense. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:21 AM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency I agree that it shouldn't matter if you outted yourself. Most people that outted themselves did so before they realized how vicious this board was, or before it became so vicious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697196) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 10:13 AM Author: Shivering alpha native There are several posters here who are clearly insane, but I still think that the majority of posters are pretty reasonable. Unfortunately, it's the few bad apples that give this forum its reputation for viciousness.
I'm all for mods, but mods too often become the target of ire. This is why I think that a voting mod (one vote per IP, or whatever) would be nice, since there is no "mod" to target anymore. Furthermore, GTO/rach could always tweak the yes/no ratio for an optimal result.
This also has the advantage of taking all user preferences into account. For example, you say that people who outted themselves years ago shouldn't have been thought to waive non-outting privilege, and I would agree. Maybe another poster would disagree with you and I, and they could certainly vote against it. The result would reflect the collective will of the forum. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 10:26 AM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency I agree that users should have voting power, but I think this board should be a republic, not a direct democracy. I think it would be best to have everyone vote on five or so mods, who would then have the power to delete threads and posts and perform other organizational tasks. Obviously people would vote on posters that they trust to do a good job. I don't think there is much of a chance of someone like Sonic Youth winning the election.
I think your plan is good, but would be too difficult in practice. How many people would we need to vote before action could occur? Won't most people get tired of voting on every little thing? The normal people will stop voting and only the fanatical posters who have a vested interest in making sure the board is moderated in a certain way will care.
I think that for very important choices - like who should be protected by the anti-outting policy - we should have a referendum. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 11:03 AM Author: Shivering alpha native (1) A republic may be initially easier to implement, and in the real world, there are probably less transx costs. Suffice to say, this forum is not the real world, but an approximation of a third world country where election monitors get shot up with AK-47s. There are some genuinely disturbed posters on this board, who'll deliberately seek out mods and try to force them into earlier retirement. To be sure, the mods have the power to censure, but a mod--especially one in law school or at a firm--is not going to have time 24/7 to neutralize a determined enemy. Therefore, the republic model doesn't work too well when there's so much ire against the mods in the first place.
(2) Since we spend a lot of time on this forum, it's hard to keep in mind sometimes that XOXO is the exception to the norm. Virtually every other forum (hell, even racist forums) have some kind of strict moderation policy.
As to the practicality of user-mods, there's a lot of precedent (see slashdot.org and other Scoop-based forums). Some of these systems are quite elaborate, and needlessly complex (e.g., slashdot.org incorporates a system where users gain credibility as they make good posts, and correspondingly, gain greater mod influence relative to the user pool, yet are subject to meta-moderation if they abuse the privilege).
For this forum, though, the system needn't be complex. For example, suppose that through experimentation, we find that trolls are only willing to cycle through 5 IPs (i.e. 5 votes) to out someone, whereas the userbase tends to vote {100Y, 10N}. Thus, if the board policy is that outing ought to be condemned, the ratio for moving a post into the garbage bin could be anything less than 100:15 -- subject to further developments on the board.
(3) It might seem that people would get tired of voting, but in reality, I think that voting would play to the peculiar characteristics of this forum. Lurkers avidly read some of the posts; are disgusted by others; but are probably paranoid about jumping into the fray. Voting is a way that they can exert some risk-free influence over the content, and people tend to enjoy engaging in risk-free activity where there's a payoff of getting a better show. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:48 PM Author: wonderful shimmering chapel no! no voting! that's the worst idea on this thread, far worse than never deleting anything (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698779) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 4:58 PM Author: Soul-stirring maroon therapy Voting risks turning this place into a nightmare zone like Daily Kos, where even reasonable people expressing unpopular viewpoints - or targets of an organized groups - can be suppressed via an easily abused system.
We all know how this board is plagued by a subset of psychopaths whose only desire is to wreak havoc on its functioning...implementing a voting system in such an environment is an invitation to disaster. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:05 PM Author: Hideous Sexy Candlestick Maker then come back with a different moniker. #1 is the best and easiest. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 5:25 AM Author: Dark station You're misunderstanding #1.
Nobody knows who you are, and that's just that. It's not a function of policy; it's due to the fact that you haven't told anyone who you are, and we can't read your mind.
Telling someone where you go to school is not going to out you. Telling someone that you're also a cute, chesty Jewish girl might, but you didn't need to tell anyone that, did you? It didn't really contribute to the usefulness of the board, did it? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:50 AM Author: Shivering alpha native It doesn't contribute to the board only if you believe that this forum's usefulness is limited to discussions about law schools. But that's not the only thing on the board; indeed, that's hardly the reason that most of us visit and post here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697239) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:25 PM Author: mauve indirect expression it's more useful to talk to someone and get their opinions if you know something about them because the knowledge shades their assessment of what you say. there should be incentives for sharing info like this, not disincentives. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697881) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:13 AM Author: Lake Shrine Immigrant I pour my heart out in song.
http://bigchanges.ytmnd.com/ |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:49 AM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook How about a new XOXO greeting: "Heil Hitler Flat Tax" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696785) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:03 AM Author: bateful misunderstood love of her life Eh who cares. Anybody whose followed what I've said could easily find my full name, where I live, my website, etc.... it doesn't really bother me because I don't say anything on this board I wouldn't say IRL.
I can understand why some people would want to remain anonymous, but then it seems simple - dont post any personal ifno |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:07 AM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook In a time of chimpanzees I was a monkey (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696832) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:23 AM Author: Odious knife version 1: no outing policy
this way we avoid all the elementary-school bullshit ("gto deleted his thread, but not mine. no fair")
if you want to hide your identity, just assume that of somebody else at your work/school. that way, we can still talk openly about firm X or school Y. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 5:28 AM Author: Dark station If you want to hide your identity, don't babble on endlessly about every little aspect of your life or history. It's not complicated.
We don't need to know what you look like, or where you went to undergrad, or what clubs you were in, etc. It's not important to the purpose of the board. If you want to tell us, that's fine, but don't act shocked if people figure out who you are based on information *you* shared! |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:23 AM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency One of the best things about this board - probably the only good thing about this board - is the community feeling that it has. I feel like I know a lot of the regs. If everyone becomes tight-lipped and paranoid about being outted the board will suck even more than it does now. Posting what UG you went to should be off-limits? Geesh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697199) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:27 PM Author: mauve indirect expression i agree. let's all talk to anonymous internet personas that refuse to tell us anything about themselves, or, if they do, we have to assume there's some probability that what they're saying is made up.
trust is more socially efficient that skepticism and hiding information. we should be encouraging it over here. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 10:47 AM Author: Shivering alpha native What is the "purpose" of this board? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697406) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:29 AM Author: Cerebral library WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? ARE YOU MICROSOFT? YOU CANT JUST GO AROUND BUYING ALL YOUR COMPETITION, YOU MAKE LSD LOOK LIKE FUCKING PARADISE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696887) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 11:26 AM Author: mahogany corner Big Changes Board is no more.
Maybe we should start one so they can buy us off. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:34 AM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook Proposal: A board of appointed posters who, as a group, have mod powers. A bad thread needs a majority vote and 2-3 person quorum to be deleted. This way the board can be moderated effectively without GTO being around but without giving anyone too much power (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696925) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:37 AM Author: geriatric market Were I running things here, I'd take a hard line stance against using names altogether. The only exceptions would be people of reasonable fame. That means no self-outing (by name, at least; you can post all the details you want) and no names of random students.
I'd probably extend this to initials, too.
As for enforcement, mods are the right answer. Put responsibility in as few hands as possible, so when things go wrong it's clear who to blame and/or punish. That also means everyone needs to know who the mods are. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:39 AM Author: Cerebral library ty, can you knock some sense into you ex co-conspirators plz. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7696951) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 5:30 AM Author: Dark station This is silly. Just treat the board as a conversation. If people decide to share their names (god forbid!) that's their business. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697092) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:28 AM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency This just isn't fair. A lot of people stumble onto this board without much experience in posting on internet message boards, or without knowing how cruel, vicious and crazed this board really is. I don't think it's fair to let them be abused for the rest of their stay on this board just because they made an error of judgment once.
And what about people who don't even post here, but someone decides to start a smear campaign about them? |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:50 AM Author: provocative house rigor Whoa, does that mean we can't bash Leiter on here anymore? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697238) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:54 AM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency I'd consider him a public figure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697250) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 10:03 AM Author: Shivering alpha native The over-the-top Leiter bashing is kind of ridiculous, but this is where a karma-based system would shine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697269) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:29 PM Author: mauve indirect expression if you come up with a method for implementing such karma-based system then i am on board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697897) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:16 PM Author: geriatric market I think faculty and administration are fair game when it comes to using names. Other students wouldn't be, however. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698197) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:14 AM Author: obsidian supple international law enforcement agency marketing idea I agree with the no names altogether. When non-posters get ripped to shreds, I think it's even worse than when a random xoxo misogynstic racist gets his true identity revealed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697189) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 9:26 AM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency I agree. It sucks that random people can have their names posted all over xoxo along with threads like "X fucked 100 black guys while her dad watched." posted over and over again so that it will turn up on google. I don't see why not posting means you aren't entitled to any protection on this board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697203) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:57 PM Author: Comical Church I agree entirely with this. It really bothers me that random people can have their names posted here, and then they show up in Google searches (which all employers inevitably do).
I am particularly bothered by people who have had their names posted months or even years ago who are still pleading with GTO to take them down to no avail. Leaving those names up seems downright spiteful, as it serves no plausible board purpose. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 1:12 PM Author: indigo public bath electric furnace I have to agree that I'd be all for a blanket ban of posting the name of other law students. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7702132) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 10:14 PM Author: impressive floppy private investor lay and associates at firms etc
persons who are arguably more public figures, like Leiter, seem fair game |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 10:41 AM Author: arousing talking state 1st RULE: You do not talk about XO.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about XO.
3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or cries, or otherwise taps out, the Outting is over.
4th RULE: Only one poster has to complain to stop an Outting.
5th RULE: One Outting results in expulsion from XO.
6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes.
7th RULE: Expulsions will go on as long as they have to.
8th RULE: If this is your first night on XO, you HAVE to fight.
|
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 11:53 AM Author: Up-to-no-good Property Mediation Actually, this is a very solid policy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697699) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 11:57 AM Author: arousing talking state ty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697720) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:08 PM Author: adventurous french chef No one should even have to complain to stop an outing. The point of mods should be they read (not individually) the majority of threads, they skim throughout the day most days of the week. If they see a thread that looks like an outing or they see a contentious thread they give it a quick read. Names mean 'ding' to the post and banning of the poster (after review by rach or GTO). This is simple and means mods can be trusted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697792) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:39 PM Author: arousing talking state 9th Rule: Keep your fucking stoopid opinions to yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7697961) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 11:59 AM Author: nubile blue dingle berry home People are bound to self-out themselves, even if only accidentally. Many of the most helpful and substantive on-topic/school-related posts have people relaying personal anecdotes about their application and law school experiences. This often includes people revealing everything from their GPA/LSAT, to their UG, their EC's, their essay topic, the law schools they've been admitted to or are attending, any classes/professors they've taken, journals they are on, firms they got callbacks/summer offers from, etc.
For those of us who are applying to law school, we yearn to know these personal details, because it helps us get a better idea of our chances of admission, or factors we should take into account when choosing between schools. For those of us already in law school, we yearn to know what kinds of grades and accolades will get us that prestigious Biglaw job, or that cushy federal clerkship.
The personal details shared by posters are vital contributions to this site, and posters should be incentivized to share their stories with the community.
With just a little investigation, I'm sure many people on this board could probably be blamed for fully or partially "self-outing". But that doesn't mean that having other people out them by name is appropriate.
This board truly thrives on the anonymity of its constituents. Faith in our anonymity allows many of us to be candid about our experiences. Unfortunately, the less mature crowd uses anonymity as a sword to spam the board with racism, to out other posters, and generally disrupt the harmony and civil discourse that Rachmiel and GTO have helped to create.
IMHO, you've just got to take the good with the bad, and every possible step must be taken to maintain the board contributors' anonymity, even at the expense of immature spammers.
My $0.02. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:10 PM Author: adventurous french chef The personal details shared by posters are vital contributions to this site, and posters should be incentivized to share their stories with the community.
With just a little investigation, I'm sure many people on this board could probably be blamed for fully or partially "self-outing". But that doesn't mean that having other people out them by name is appropriate. ----------------------------
excellent post. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 12:35 PM Author: mauve indirect expression "With just a little investigation, I'm sure many people on this board could probably be blamed for fully or partially "self-outing". But that doesn't mean that having other people out them by name is appropriate."
i was just about to post something like this.
with all the information about me on the site, someone who knew me could figure out who i am. in fact, some people have. which is fine (not ideal, but i'll deal with it), so long as they keep the info to themselves and don't go around calling me "twigger" in real life. when people approach me and ask i admit it. i reassure myself by thinking that if someone figured it out, they too read xo way too much, and this mutually shared shame in internet dorkdom will keep us silent.
but it would be completely different if someone posted "twigger is [x] and her facebook page is over here and she works at [y] etc." my name is unique enough so that it would show up on google. i'm a nice person. just because i've intermittenly posted which schools i go to and some personal characteristics to add depth to my comments doesn't mean i deserve the whole world to know who i am. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:10 PM Author: fragrant gaped sanctuary seconded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698168) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:12 PM Author: Comical Church This is a good post. I very much agree with this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698177) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:13 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698183) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:08 PM Author: beady-eyed dead legal warrant Anyone here who thinks that outings, and name calling and all that racist crap isn't an integral part of this board's identity is shitting themselves. Posters on other law boards share information about themselves quite readily (I could pinpoint 5 or 6 LSD posters easily) without having to worry about being outed. Not to say that anyone wants this board to turn into LSD, but people need to appreciate the fact that XO isn't the way it is just because of a few accidental posts. Anyone who stumbles on here with half a brain knows within minutes that this is not a place to act a fool. (unless you're looking for attention--let's call this the BlueSmoke exception)The people who stay, lurkers, posters, bystanders, whatever, all have one thing in common, a taste for blood. They appreciate the subversive over the mundane, snark over cordiality, and the judicious use of cruelty. This my friends, is the nature of the beast. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:21 PM Author: Comical Church Your post can continue to stand exactly as is with removal of the word "outing" from the first sentence.
I pretty much agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't think a more protectionist outing policy would impinge on any of that. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:39 PM Author: beady-eyed dead legal warrant Subject: Here's the thing Sure it stand without the word "outing". It can also stand without the words "name calling" and the words "racist crap". Outings don't affect me personally, because I have the good sense to keep my online persona separate from my personal life. The racist crap does bother me on the other hand because it dictates that I have to conceal the fact that I read/post on this board. I could front a campaign similar to this one to tamp down on that stuff and, just as in this case, I could list several compelling reasons as to why it should be. My point is that, yes, changes can be enforced artificially but it WILL change the nature of the board itself. The outing stuff and the racist stuff isn't something that can be wished away by banning two or three posters. It is the reality of the board because every poster on here condones it. By continuing to post in the face of it, we all condone it and give tacit approval toward its continuance. An outing occurs and it's like a freaking traffic pileup on here. The outing threads are the longest and MOST popular threads and they're never filled with posts demanding that the outing stop or the content be removed. Like I said this board appeals to the basest emotions of its users, to deny that is to deny what made the board so incredibly popular in the first place. More importantly, nothing I've written in this post is anything any poster on here doesn't know. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 4:21 PM Author: Comical Church I personally draw the line when the funny, snarky stuff on this site spills over into potentially ruining people's careers. That's why I would want a more protective outing policy (most specifically targeted at preventing people's names from being googled) and don't mind letting the name calling and racist crap go. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7699276) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 10:19 PM Author: impressive floppy private investor lay a person's legal career shouldn't be ruined b/c a google search turns up threads w/ his/her name (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7709232) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:17 PM Author: Smoky Learning Disabled Striped Hyena what about posting myspace profiles? if i run across some hottie with big fake titties at some law school, i'm obligated to share with xoxo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698201) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:19 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency Myspace profiles can be made private so I don't see a problem with that.
Copying info from the site (like school, jobs) and pasting it here shouldn't be ok. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 1:28 PM Author: Electric Quadroon Police Squad Delete all names, except those of public figures (I think Leiter and most other professors would qualify - otherwise we couldn't talk about which ones were good and which ones suck - but random law students wouldn't). I'm not that sympathetic with Blue Smoke, but the constant discussion about who self-outed and who outed others and who counts as a poster is annoying. It'll be easier to have a uniform policy.
Links to sites that contain a person's name and aren't under their direct control should also be deleted (so no links to work websites, but myspace might be ok since the person can go private).
People who out others can be punished some other way, maybe by IP banning. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:19 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency Why aren't you sympathetic with me? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698615) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:23 PM Author: Electric Quadroon Police Squad I think you were at least partly responsible for what happened, and that you've made it considerably worse by continuing all these feuds with moderators and other posters.
I also don't think the board has gotten that much nastier over the years. It was always a pretty brutal place. It's just that you used to be a loved and respected poster and had nothing to fear from it, and have a different opinion about it now that your reputation is diminished.
But all that being said, a no names policy seems more practical and easier to enforce. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:30 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency I don't remember why exactly I was outted this year. I think it was something to do with me graduating from Yale. I don't think this was my fault.
I would agree that being a controversial board figure has made it worse. But really... a lot of the people who don't want their names on xoxo would not have as many problems if they maintained a lower profile. I don't think I'm unique in this regard.
I think the board was much nicer around the beginning of 2004, which is when I posted my name. Also, I did it on the college board, not the law board. The boards don't share many posters, and most of the college board posters are younger and less sadistic. Also, there are way fewer posters/lurkers there, and most of the people seem to know each other, so it was more of a community. I would never have behaved the same way on the law side, and at that point I never intended to become a law board poster. Even if people loved me over here on this side, I wouldn't want my name floating around. You are very well-liked and respected here and even you suffer from harassment, criticism of your looks, outting attempts, etc. I don't know why anyone would want their personal lives to intersect with this board. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:37 PM Author: Electric Quadroon Police Squad I agree most people don't want their personal lives to intersect with this board. And I'd probably favor the same sort of outing policy you would, though for different reasons.
The college board could be pretty harsh back when it actually had posters, and given the number of people who at least glance at both boards it was unreasonable to think you could tell everyone everything on one side without having some people from the other side reading it. I've pretty much always known your name, and I didn't/don't post over there much. I think you were just a less-harassed poster, as I am now. People might give me shit sometimes, but I get a lot less than posters who are having a war with someone every day.
People started posting your name because you posted a bunch of drama queen threads about law school and your career plans, pissing off the board in general, and because you had constant arguments with a couple of your enemies. And after people started bothering you, you kept up this behavior, which ensured that you'd stay in the spotlight. If you'd been quiet for a few months, people would have forgotten. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 8:18 AM Author: slippery hyperactive orchestra pit scourge upon the earth You're really a very smart woman. I wish you weren't taken. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7701618) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:39 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook the links policy shouldnt cover everyone, just posters. otherwise it makes no sense. ip banning doesn't work (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698726) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:45 PM Author: Electric Quadroon Police Squad If we can't post Jiamie Chen's name on the board, why would it be ok to make fun of her and post a link to a firm or a school site listing her name?
The exceptions for public figures and myspace pages should be broad enough to cover most of the posts about individuals on the board. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 7:56 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook you're suggesting their should never be another thread like "Check out this hot latham associate" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700393) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 7:58 PM Author: Electric Quadroon Police Squad I guess I can live without that. Is the board really impacted if you guys have to leer at facebook girls instead of associates? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700406) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:00 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook thats ridiculous. someone couldnt even post "I think I have a good chance at latham check out this associate who wasnt stone" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700419) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:03 PM Author: Electric Quadroon Police Squad When's the last time you saw a post like that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700434) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:09 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook The main problem here is google bombing right? Solution: just make some people semi-mods with ONLY on-topic/off-topic classification power. Any "outing" or google bomb attempts can be put off topic where they will be ungoogleable. Problem solved, and no extra people have to get deletion powers, which has been a problem in the past. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700457) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 3:48 PM Author: low-t laser beams Off-topic threads become googleable the second someone links to them anywhere, whether it's some blog, or even just another thread.
Also I'm not keen on the idea of pushing legitimate on-topic content into the off-topic section. |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 10:26 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook I dont understand. You'd rather have legitimate on-topic content deleted than made off-topic? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7709257) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:26 PM Author: Dark station I've made posts like that. Someone asked whether they needed to be top whatever to get a job at a firm, and I linked profiles of associates who graduated from their school without honors. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700521) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:13 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency I don't think facebook is great either. The #s in the link to pics reveal the person's profile. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700471) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:51 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency Why wouldn't it make sense? I don't think people who are not public figures should have their names (or links to their names) posted on this board. The public figure category is broad enough to cover anyone who should reasonably be discussed here - professors/deans/partners at law firms, celebrities, people who are in the news, minor internet celebrities like that FSU girl who was in Sports Illustrated, and people who have blogs that reveal their real names.
I don't think it's appropriate to link to things that out people who don't fall into one of the above categories. I don't see a problem with pictures (with the exception of facebook links because it seems you can find someone's profile using the #s in the link), myspace profiles and any other site that is controlled by the person in question and doesn't contain names. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:19 PM Author: brass mental disorder What about someone who is in the news for traffic/criminal violations but is otherwise not a public figure?
Because I don't participate in it, my example is a certain individual who attends a law school in South Bend Indiana that may have operated a motor vehicle after having consumed a few drinks.
They are linked to in news stories, so the news story is public info, but the xoxo effect on google is brutal. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:20 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency I don't think rach should have deleted that dood's threads. But whatever. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698948) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:28 PM Author: brass mental disorder That's my point. It isn't an outing. It wasn't posting information that was't available elsewhere online or in a newspaper. Yet he is "non public figure" according to the xoxo definition.
Yet when the quasi-racism/John Roberts thing happened at NU with the SBA President, his name was everywhere. Those threads are still alive to my knowledge. I don't get the difference between those two sets of threads.
|
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:06 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook even more than that, what's the difference between the Penn shooter threads and the Notre Dame drunk driver threads? GTO is going to allow only class c felonies or higher? the whole thing is stupid.
This is a law school gossip board. Let people gossip. Gossip hurts people sometimes. If it's google bombs people are worried about, what's so hard about giving mods power to classify things as off-topic? that way they dont get indexed, no one gets hurt, and you don't even have to give mods deletion power. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:03 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook yea: partners at firms but not associates, law professors but not law students, law deans but not career services people, penn gun shooters but not nd drunk drivers, etc. Sounds totally workable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700430) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:16 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency People in leadership positions like that are usually more public. Also, they're more relevant to this site. I've heard people talk about horrible partners at various firms. I don't know how it would be necessary to talk about an associate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700485) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:23 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook Senior associates do just as much or more supervision at many firms. The distinctions you are making are vaporous and totally unworkable. Why is it OK to post the penn shooter's name and not the ND drunk driver? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700508) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:27 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency I didn't see a problem with posting the ND drunk driver's name. He was in the news, he's a public figure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700523) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:30 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook well I guess there was a problem with it. How about the NYU kid that came drunk to class and barfed on someone else's laptop? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700533) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:32 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency Not OK, IMO. Someone whose name is published in the media is different from someone who a few students say do something stupid in class. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700539) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:39 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook it was in front of a hundred students and a professor. What about the NU SBA president? how about the cleary summer associate that got drunk, naked and swam in new york harbor? this stuff is the bread and butter of the site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700563) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 2:55 PM Author: beady-eyed dead legal warrant Subject: Seriously? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7698825) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 6:07 PM Author: beta son of senegal temple Rowan is correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7699891) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 3:50 PM Author: territorial locale wait, who is roffles? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7699077) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 6:25 PM Author: Rough-skinned plum pit People should not use the internet as a sounding board for ideas they are not willing the world to hear. That said, outting someone for posting offensive (even racist) ideas is bad form. People should be able to exercise free speech anonymously because some ideas, even offensive ones, should be heard. See NAACP v. Alabama (yes, i am huge dork for citing a case). And although NAACP would not apply to a internet board, the principle still should. Hearing offensive words and ideas helps people confront that people, in 2007, are racist. Moreover, people posting stuff about internal firm workings (e.g., bonuses and salary) is very informative for dumbasses like me.
No one should be outted, ever. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 6:24 PM Author: laughsome bossy school cafeteria feces If the poster whose name is posted wants it taken down, take it down. End of discussion.
If someone persist in posting that name, ban them. |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 7:40 PM Author: Concupiscible overrated national security agency This seems lik the obvious, simple answer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700305) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 7:58 PM Author: soggy nursing home travel guidebook but definitely allow us to talk about and post link about nonposters (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700401) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 1:32 PM Author: Insanely creepy henna kitty pisswyrm This would serve as confirmation that the person was successfully outed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7702185) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:12 PM Author: brass mental disorder Then all alleged outing of posters must be deleted in order to maintain that an outing was incorrect. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7702829) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:40 PM Author: Insanely creepy henna kitty pisswyrm right. but if as above, the only way to get an outing deleted is to bitch...well, you see the problem. it has to be blanket. Like if they said CALM = Abraham Lincoln...gotta delete it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7702982) |
|
Date: March 2nd, 2007 8:32 PM Author: Dark station As Dr. Marty Lipton King, Jr. pointed out earlier, removing the off-topic area of XO from Google's index, and providing a simple method to move things off-topic would fix a lot of people's worries. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7700537) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:23 PM Author: stubborn fiercely-loyal cumskin Subject: Suggestion Mark is a 45-year old white male with a stocky build and a beard. His head is shaved. He responded to my ad to be interviewed for this article wearing only leather pants, leather boots and a leather vest. I could see that both of his nipples were pierced with large-gauge silver rings.
--------------------------------------------------------
Questioner: I hope you won’t be offended if I ask you to prove to me that you’re a nullo. Just so that our readers will know that this isn’t a fake.
Mark: Sure, no problem. (stands and unbuckles pants and drops them to his ankles, revealing a smooth, shaven crotch with only a thin scar to show where his genitals once were).
Q: Thank you. That’s a remarkable sight.
(laughs and pulls pants back up). Most people think so.
Q: What made you decide to become a nullo?
(pauses). Well, it really wasn’t entirely my decision.
Q: Excuse me?
The idea wasn’t mine. It was my lover’s idea.
Q: Please explain what you mean.
Okay, it’s a long story. You have to understand my relationship with Scott before you’ll know what happened.
Q: We have plenty of time. Please go on.
Both of us were into the leather lifestyle when we met through a personal ad. Scott’s ad was very specific: he was looking for someone to completely dominate and modify to his pleasure. In other word, a slave.
The ad intrigued me. I had been in a number of B&D scenes and also some S&M, but I found them unsatisfying because they were all temporary. After the fun was over, everybody went on with life as usual.
I was looking for a complete life change. I wanted to meet someone who would be part of my life forever. Someone who would control me and change me at his whim.
Q: In other words, you’re a true masochist.
Oh yes, no doubt about that. I’ve always been totally passive in my sexual relationships.
Anyway, we met and there was instant chemistry. Scott is a few years older than me and very good looking. Our personalities meshed totally. He’s very dominant.
I went back to his place after drinks and had the best sex of my life. That’s when I knew I was going to be with Scott for a long, long time.
Q: What sort of things did you two do?
It was very heavy right away. He restrained me and whipped me for quite awhile. He put clamps on my nipples and a ball gag in my mouth. And he hung a ball bag on my sack with some very heavy weights. That bag really bounced around when Scott fucked me from behind.
Q: Ouch.
(laughs) Yeah, no kidding. At first I didn’t think I could take the pain, but Scott worked me through it and after awhile I was flying. I was sorry when it was over.
Scott enjoyed it as much as I did. Afterwards he talked about what kind of a commitment I’d have to make if I wanted to stay with him.
Q: What did he say exactly?
Well, besides agreeing to be his slave in every way, I’d have to be ready to be modified. To have my body modified.
Q: Did he explain what he meant by that?
Not specifically, but I got the general idea. I guessed that something like castration might be part of it.
Q: How did that make you feel?
(laughs) I think it would make any guy a little hesitant.
Q: But it didn’t stop you from agreeing to Scott’s terms?
No it didn’t. I was totally hooked on this man. I knew that I was willing to pay any price to be with him.
Anyway, a few days later I moved in with Scott. He gave me the rules right away: I’d have to be naked at all times while we were indoors, except for a leather dog collar that I could never take off. I had to keep my head shaved. And I had to wear a butt plug except when I needed to take a shit or when we were having sex.
I had to sleep on the floor next to his bed. I ate all my food on the floor, too.
The next day he took me to a piercing parlor where he had my nipples done, and a Prince Albert put into the head of my cock.
Q: Heavy stuff.
Yeah, and it got heavier. He used me as a toilet, pissing in my mouth. I had to lick his asshole clean after he took a shit, too. It was all part of a process to break down any sense of individuality I had. After awhile, I wouldn’t hesitate to do anything he asked.
Q: Did the sex get rougher?
Oh God, yeah. He started fisting me every time we had sex. But he really started concentrating on my cock and balls, working them over for hours at a time.
He put pins into the head of my cock and into my sack. He attached clothespins up and down my cock and around my sack. The pain was pretty bad. He had to gag me to keep me from screaming.
Q: When did the idea of nullification come up?
Well, it wasn’t nullification at first. He started talking about how I needed to make a greater commitment to him, to do something to show that I was dedicated to him for life.
When I asked him what he meant, he said that he wanted to take my balls.
Q: How did you respond?
Not very well at first. I told him that I liked being a man and didn’t want to become a eunuch. But he kept at me, and wore me down. He reminded me that I agreed to be modified according to his wishes, and this is what he wanted for me. Anything less would show that I wasn’t really committed to the relationship. And besides, I was a total bottom and didn’t really need my balls.
It took about a week before I agreed to be castrated. But I wasn’t happy about it, believe me.
Q: How did he castrate you?
Scott had a friend who was into the eunuch scene. One night he came over with his bag of toys, and Scott told me that this was it. I was gonna lose my nuts then and there.
Q: Did you think of resisting?
I did for a minute, but deep down I knew there was no way. I just didn’t want to lose Scott. I’d rather lose my balls.
Scott’s friend restrained me on the living room floor while Scott videotaped us. He used an elastrator to put a band around my sack.
Q: That must have really hurt.
Hell yeah. It’s liked getting kicked in the balls over and over again. I screamed for him to cut the band off, but he just kept on going, putting more bands on me. I had four bands around my sack when he finished.
I was rolling around on the floor screaming, while Scott just videotaped me. Eventually, my sack got numb and the pain subsided. I looked between my legs and could see my sack was a dark purple. I knew my balls were dying inside.
Scott and his friend left the room and turned out the light. I lay there for hours, crying because I was turning into a eunuch and there wasn’t anything I could do about it.
Q: What happened then?
Eventually I fell asleep from exhaustion. Then the light switched on and I could see Scott’s friend kneeling between my legs, touching my sack. I heard him tell Scott that my balls were dead.
Q: How did Scott react?
Very pleased. He bent down and felt around my sack. He said that it felt cold.
Scott’s friend told me that I needed to keep the bands on. He said that eventually my balls and sack would dry up and fall off. I just nodded. What else could I do at that point?
Q: Did it happen just like Scott’s friend said?
Yeah, a week or so later my package just fell off. Scott put it in a jar of alcohol to preserve it. It’s on the table next to his bed.
Q: How did things go after that?
Scott was really loving to me. He kept saying how proud he was of me, how grateful that I had made the commitment to him. He even let me sleep in his bed.
Q: What about the sex?
We waited awhile after my castration, and then took it easy until I was completely healed. At first I was able to get hard, but as the weeks went by my erections began to disappear.
That pleased Scott. He liked fucking me and feeling my limp cock. It made his dominance over me even greater.
Q: When did he start talking about making you a nullo?
A couple of months after he took my nuts. Our sex had gotten to be just as rough as before the castration. He really got off on torturing my cock. Then he started saying stuff like, “Why do you even need this anymore?”
That freaked me out. I always thought that he might someday take my balls, but I never imagined that he’d go all the way. I told him that I wanted to keep my dick.
Q: How did he react to that?
At first he didn’t say much. But he kept pushing. Scott said I would look so nice being smooth between my legs. He said my dick was small and never got hard anymore, so what was the point of having it.
But I still resisted. I wanted to keep my cock. I felt like I wouldn’t be a man anymore without it.
Q: So how did he get you to agree?
He didn’t. He took it against my will.
Q: How did that happen?
We were having sex in the basement, and I was tied up and bent over this wooden bench as he fucked me. Then I heard the doorbell ring. Scott answered it, and he brought this guy into the room.
At first I couldn’t see anything because of the way I was tied. But then I felt these hands lift me up and put me on my back. And I could see it was Steve’s friend, the guy who took my nuts.
Q: How did you react?
I started screaming and crying, but the guy just gagged me. The two of them dragged me to the other side of the room where they tied me spread eagled on the floor.
Steve’s friend snaked a catheter up my dick, and gave me a shot to numb my crotch. I was grateful for that, at least. I remember how bad it hurt to lose my balls.
Q: What was Steve doing at this time?
He was kneeling next to me talking quietly. He said I’d be happy that they were doing this. That it would make our relationship better. That kind of calmed me down. I thought, “Well, maybe it won’t be so bad.”
Q: How long did the penectomy take?
It took awhile. Some of the penis is inside the body, so he had to dig inside to get all of it. There was a lot of stitching up and stuff. He put my cock in the same jar with my balls. You can even see the Prince Albert sticking out of the head.
Then they made me a new pisshole. It’s between my asshole and where my sack used to be. So now I have to squat to piss.
Q: What has life been like since you were nullified?
After I got over the surgery and my anger, things got better. When I healed up, I began to like my smooth look. Steve brought friends over and they all admired it, saying how pretty I looked. It made me feel good that Steve was proud of me.
Q: Do you have any sexual feeling anymore?
Yes, my prostate still responds when Steve fucks me or uses the buttplug. And my nipples are quite sensitive. If Steve plays with them while fucking me, I have a kind of orgasm. It’s hard to describe, but it’s definitely an orgasm.
Sometimes Steve says he’s gonna have my prostate and nipples removed, but he’s just kidding around. He’s happy with what he’s done to me.
Q: So are you glad Steve had you nullified?
Well, I wouldn’t say I’m glad. If I could, I’d like to have my cock and balls back. But I know that I’m a nullo forever. So I’m making the best of it.
Steve and I are very happy. I know that he’ll take care of me and we’ll be together always. I guess losing my manhood was worth it to make that happen for us. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 5:29 PM Author: arousing talking state God damn. Thread CLOSED! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7703217) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 5:49 PM Author: Soul-stirring maroon therapy If this is the first time you've seen the "Nullo story," then kill self; you're obviously not versed enough in XOXO lore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7703287) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 9:26 PM Author: stubborn fiercely-loyal cumskin TITCR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7704175) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 1:41 AM Author: Bistre Idea He Suggested don't out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7705508) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 1:56 PM Author: Bonkers orange black woman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7706574) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 8:22 PM Author: underhanded puce skinny woman step-uncle's house More feces. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=588683&forum_id=2#7713515) |