*

gvout

  • A Cup
  • *
  • 27
Site changes?
« on: March 17, 2013, 08:33:21 PM »
I know I'm not here as much as I used to be, but when did "A Cup of Chili Ultra"
go to the members area?

Your post is being moved to Site Issues, where you ought to have posted it to start with out of consideration for other users, who rightly express exasperation when non-BB/BE posts are put in the General Forum. Please keep this in mind in the future.

I've explained what you asked about above. Thanks. -Palomine
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 12:14:23 AM by Palomine »

*

gonZo

  • pain-in-the-ass moderator
  • 9671
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2013, 11:57:34 PM »
Recently, I think. It may be a temporary change.

*

Nimrod

  • KC Strip Artist
  • 1617
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2013, 12:33:32 PM »
OK, I want to officially say "What the?"

Really! REALLY! "A Cup of Chili Ultra" suddenly moves to the Members side of the fence!
A folder and content that has remained static and free for close to 15 years!

What happened? Did suddenly new content get dumped?
Did Chili come back to resurrect the pages?
Did some random author decide to finally assert some archaic copyright?
Did they finally change the horrid orange on orange color scheme?

This is the sort of thing that just gets my circuits in a twitter.
Not like the content (stories) had not been saved out to many people's hard drives...
Or that said people could easily set up a still FREE collection somewhere...
Or that this only would continue to fragment and weaken the overall BEA participation...

I mean really, of all things to move to the BEA Members side - COCU is only about 40% BE to start with, what a let down for a new member to the BEA.
BE Together...

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24116
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2013, 12:11:58 AM »
OK, I want to officially say "What the?"

Really! REALLY! "A Cup of Chili Ultra" suddenly moves to the Members side of the fence!
A folder and content that has remained static and free for close to 15 years!

What happened? Did suddenly new content get dumped?
Did Chili come back to resurrect the pages?
Did some random author decide to finally assert some archaic copyright?
Did they finally change the horrid orange on orange color scheme?

This is the sort of thing that just gets my circuits in a twitter.
Not like the content (stories) had not been saved out to many people's hard drives...
Or that said people could easily set up a still FREE collection somewhere...
Or that this only would continue to fragment and weaken the overall BEA participation...

I mean really, of all things to move to the BEA Members side - COCU is only about 40% BE to start with, what a let down for a new member to the BEA.


Some items that have been online for a long time are in the process of being reviewed for compliance with current policies. While this takes place, they may be moved offline (or out of non-member reach) temporarily, as has happened with The Plume. It's nothing to get alarmed about... it'd be unrealistic to think that something uploaded 10 or even 15 years ago would automatically be assumed 'safe' from a legal perspective by today's standards.

What can be returned to where it was, will eventually be returned, but we've got finite manpower to do this, so it'll take time. Please be patient. Thanks. :)

*

Nimrod

  • KC Strip Artist
  • 1617
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2013, 01:02:22 PM »
And here I thought that the color scheme had finally been changed.  ;)

I feel that this COCU action had such an impact on me because of 3 primary reasons:

1) COCU had been here for so long it felt and depicted the early BEA in some ways. Something like a nostalgic time capsule that was representative of the community as it was back in the late 90's. Not like it was comprehensive or especially unique but there was a large amount of material, especially being on the "free" side of things - like everything was back then I might add. Sort of like an old vintage car that has sat out on a dealer's lot for years, that you see all the time as you drive by, which suddenly one day is yanked back into a closed up garage... You miss it and hope that they don't mess it up or sell it for scrap. Not like you needed, wanted, or even liked everything about it but it had just been a part of the fabric of the place and to suddenly see it uprooted is a shock.

2) The whole "We need to evaluate old content to see if it complies with our continuously updated set of rules" just feels off for some reason. I totally understand that in order to maintain the current BEA presence as unencumbered as possible it is necessary to take on a much more stringent review of the actions and content that is here. However, it feels just slightly to me that the "attitude" that the older content is somehow at fault for the fact that it is the "environment" (the rules) that are changing when the content is as static as COCU was comes off as being a bit backward. Please blame the modified rules that are **77** the review of the content and the removal (sequestering) of the content and not the content in the explanation as to why it is being done. Yes, I do expect the blame the rules for they are what has changed.

3) My final critique comes from and parallels Palomine's comment about manpower. Yes, there is not much of it to go around here at the BEA and yet for a site such as this the place functions surprisingly well. Numerous times over the years totally random people have commented on how special this place is. Part of it is the age of the site, part of it is the subject matter or the large percentage of long time participants helping to temper and direct the upstart nubie. But with apparently such a small workforce able to upkeep the place and the long list of other "things to fix" the fact that time was taken to go out and pull for review one of the larger collections of stories again just feels off. Why not try and get the BEA chat updated so it consistently works? or improve the vetting of new content, participants or encouragement of appropriate or compliant submissions. Will messing around in the BEA's attic really get the lawn mowed, the house painted or the rusty mailbox fixed?


One suggestion - I would ask that for posterity sake that some comment, tag or other indicator be left in the remnants of the COCU content saying that "This content has been reviewed and edited to contain only subject matter compliant with the current BEA website submitting criteria as of (insert date). Some material from (original submit date) may have been removed."

Not only will this be a memorial to the necessary censoring (long live the lost content) but also as an alert to the newer User that content should comply if there is any hope of it staying on the BEA, even if it is nearly 15 years later that the removal occurs.  :-\

Keep up the good work.

Trying not to sound sarcastic, really - good work Mods.
BE Together...

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24116
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2013, 06:12:59 AM »
Hi Nim,

I'm sincerely sorry that you find the need for the BEA to review, and where necessary edit, some early content distressing. I appreciate nostalgia just as much as the next guy (I get a little misty-eyed when I see how the forum originally looked in the Wayback Machine) but I'm sure you understand that some material that got posted more than 15 years ago couldn't be posted now. I hope that the fact that the sum total of what's likely to change is less than one percent provides you with some measure of consolation.

I'm not really sure that I follow your 'feels off' or 'a bit backward' comments. If some old content represents liability in today's world that's simply a fact. To 'blame the rules' (which have evolved over time only ever out of specific realistic/legal necessity) isn't just putting the cart before the horse (which it certainly is) ...it'd be denying reality. The world is a litigious place and back in the BEA's early days, the site was smaller and it attracted far fewer eyeballs. Heck, parts of the site predate google… meaning that the odds of random visitors stumbling across something questionable and serious trouble resulting were much smaller than they are now.

Almost every specific content/source prohibition in the rules today exists because someone somewhere (with the standing to do so) threatened legal action against the site if the BEA didn't do as they insisted (i.e.: cease and desist from posting/hosting/distributing the content in question). The fact that a new item gets added to the rules as a result doesn't mean that the 'rule is to blame' …the threat is the cause and the rule is the effect.

I agree with you that this place is special, for all the reasons you stated. If it weren't, I'm certain quite a few of us would have left years ago. And I too think it'd be great if more resources were dedicated to its upkeep and improvement. But that's not my decision, or yours or any of ours of course. My impression is that the Owner allocates just as much paid manpower to the free parts of the site as he feels is appropriate. Will our crappy chat applet ever be replaced with a more stable, feature-rich one? I certainly hope so, but I got tired of asking for that a few years ago. If it happens someday I'll cheer, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

As for your suggestion that a 'memorial' be left to celebrate (?) the 'lost content' …while I can understand the sentiment, I don't see much wisdom in the actual implementation: it'd be counterproductive for the BEA to go out of its way to draw attention to the fact that in the early days, stuff could be found here that would never be allowed today for legal/ethical reasons. Nor would these markers really improve the site or benefit old or new users by their presence. Stuff has been changing here from day one: every single forum post is editable for 24 hours, and active gallery owners have always been able to indefinitely modify their pages at will. And of course, our community of users changes significantly over time as well. A year from now the BEA will be different from how it is today, and in ten years, that difference will be greater. This site is always changing, just like the internet as a whole.


« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 03:27:16 PM by Palomine »

*

Nimrod

  • KC Strip Artist
  • 1617
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2013, 08:47:39 AM »
Thanks for the well considered reply PoM.

My response was much more basic. All the rational reasons for this specific edit to the BEA content, as you have said, are simply a necessary response to the ever-changing landscape that is the internet. It was just that when long static content suddenly gets the cold harsh spotlight it makes me stop to wonder why that item and not something else received the attention.

That is why I say "REALLY?!"

My suggestion to some sort of "tag" was not a "celebration" of the content removed but rather a testament to the continual efforts of the dedicated few who have been charged to help maintain the BEA presence - no matter how modified. If the effort has to be directed at a long standing component then I say at least celebrate that effort and make a note that such effort has happened so that this external attention gets focused elsewhere... sort of like, "OK, we have done what was needed now move on, nothing to see here..."

It has been recommended by counsel that I add that at no time have I intended to lament the loss of or the interest to maintain prohibited content. I do not even know what within COCU had pinged on someone's radar. What I think is being lost is the understanding that oddly this place was more diverse and open in years past and undeniably that the rules governing it and the content within have slowly become more constricted. Yes, it could be that now it is easier to find the content, or that more eyes are looking at the BEA or even that tastes and the focus have shifted - all of which are actually good things to me. I am not even really all that affected by the aspect of change itself.

So, in closing I think the best way to sum up my initial reaction was really one of shock that something so old and stagnant as the COCU content even got attention. It is totally possible that down in the dark recesses of the BEA there still lurks some content that does not fit current criteria, there are also some gems and also simply some cool bits of history. Let's just continue to hope that the cool is kept whilst we purge to be compliant due to the pressure from outside the community...

Yes, the point of ultimate origin to why the action is done is really unattainable. It is not really the rules, or the litigious "others", or the ease by which they find fault with the BEA, or the more lax submission environment of the 1990's or the smaller scale back then or the fact that the BEA formed or that all of this is changing. But as it is the rules that are held up by all parties as the common meter stick then I must blame that stick if things are found falling short all of a sudden. I mean, really if we did not have change we would not have expansion and then where would the BEA be?

"Change is good, but it does mean that you have broken your dollar and now have some lesser amount."

* Actually I know exactly what content at COCU probably got attention but seeing as I dislike it as much as the rest I am happy it will be removed and pose less of a threat to the BEA remaining operational. Good thing it was not up there for 16 years cause that would have been the year it really started to cause a problem. (yes, now that was sarcastic)
BE Together...

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24116
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2013, 01:27:21 PM »
...when long static content suddenly gets the cold harsh spotlight it makes me stop to wonder why that item and not something else received the attention...

As mentioned, each of our current rules evolved out of specific legal necessity. The current house-cleaning is no different: a relatively ancient item attracted unwanted attention and it (and similar items) had/have to be removed in order to keep the BEA in good health. As it happens, this particular prompt originated outside the forum, but that doesn't mean the risk could be ignored.

As everything online is always changing, I tend to favor the 'save first and ask questions later' approach: not just here but everywhere. That is to say that when I see a file/page/site that interests me, I simply save a copy to my local drive for later reference since it might have disappeared (gone offline) years, days or even just hours later. Big hard drives are dirt cheap and make it easy to maintain nostalgia into perpetuity. ;) JMHO. :)

*

CarlTL

  • ZZZ Cup
  • 7309
  • King of the Avatars
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2013, 12:27:02 AM »
Reading this suddenly enlightened me to why the Plume board need to be taken down.

Mod edit: we explained that back in January when it happened, using new pinned threads in the General Forum and in the Plume II forum itself. As a matter of courtesy, we always try to keep users as informed about changes as we can... using pinned threads for announcements or posting here in Site Issues. And of course, any rule edits (happens a couple times a year on average) that users should know about are publicized by bumping the pinned "New Revisions to the Forum Rules" thread in the General Forum itself: http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9982777.0.html -Pal :)
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 05:01:45 AM by Palomine »

*

gonZo

  • pain-in-the-ass moderator
  • 9671
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2013, 11:25:59 AM »
Zookie's question about a broken My Bookmarks page has been moved into its own thread here:

      http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9988783.0.html

*

Nimrod

  • KC Strip Artist
  • 1617
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2016, 07:36:00 AM »
I did happen to notice that some content (stories) that contained items now in conflict with the changing BEA rules has been redacted. This did make me smile a bit, as there had been more stuff in that collection when it was free. Now that it has moved to the members only section, those who pay are actually getting less than before in this regard.

Yes, the irony makes me smile a bit.  :)

I wonder if old copies of the then free content could get people in cross-wise with the site. But, it is possible that people who have no idea that some sections have moved to member only areas might innocently share it with others thinking that it still is free, like it had been for years. In fact, I am sure I have items in my archive that might have moved to member areas now. Not being a member (never have been) I have no way of confirming it unless I can recall the specific section... and that is unlikely.

Again, this is just a hypothetical concern. It does not appear that very much has moved. I keep my archive more for the history and cool stuff, and it is unlikely to need to be distributed.
BE Together...

*

gonZo

  • pain-in-the-ass moderator
  • 9671
Re: Site changes?
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2016, 05:52:25 PM »
We have almost completed a thorough pass through the site during which problematic content (mainly having to do with models and story characters who were actual or canonical minors) has been identified and removed.

Meanwhile, the admins undertook a (fairly minor) site reorganization that turned off free access to some areas. Not many.

We don't plan to re-review once the pass is complete, so perhaps your wisest option regarding the subject would be a knowing silence.  ;)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 05:55:02 PM by gonZo »