[The Warlock]

I suppose that depends on how long you guys have been married...

The Warlock

[SwitcherX]

Quote:
I can definately see how that happened Switch, but I have to tell ya, I doubt the moronic messages came from here...

I meant guys on the net in general.  Not necessarly from here.

[ThomasSchmidt]

Quote:

Quote:
I can definately see how that happened Switch, but I have to tell ya, I doubt the moronic messages came from here...

I meant guys on the net in general.  Not necessarly from here.

Thus she's stated very clearly on her profile that she doesn't want to talk about her breasts, which I can perfectly understand. I even had a brief chat with her about how to improve security on her profile. But in the end it always comes down to this: If you post a bunch of pictures with your boobs hanging out, guys will react to it, and many won't show their best behavior.

But I do believe that our members here at the BEA - at least those who post and don't just lurk - are on average a lot more respectful towards women than the average 15 year old troll on the social network that shall not be named. These trolls give all normal guys a bad name, those who are able to enjoy beautiful women with big boobs without harassing or degrading them. So I doubt that harassment caused by BEA users was the reason for Wendy's plea to remove all her pictures here. She probably found the forum and thought that the topic of guys discussing boobs itsself was creepy and geeky per se, and generally didn't want to be a part in such discussions, no matter how respectful they were.

[zeo]

Quote:

Thus she's stated very clearly on her profile that she doesn't want to talk about her breasts, which I can perfectly understand. I even had a brief chat with her about how to improve security on her profile. But in the end it always comes down to this: If you post a bunch of pictures with your boobs hanging out, guys will react to it, and many won't show their best behavior.

I don't know this particular woman, but I would say it goes further than just those rude idiots.

When a woman (this is generally speaking from here on out) is pushing her breasts up and out of her shirt and then going the extra mile to display pictures of it online it's about getting attention. Sure, it's not the rude idiots out there she wants, but she wants attention from a certain type of guy she's looking for. Some ugly (in her view) guy could be perfectly polite, respectful, etc, maybe not even mention her boobs, but he will still be complained about because he isn't the kind of guy she wants attention from.

[Duffdog]

well, getting attention from a certain kind of guy is one thing, but I bet thats not the real reason.  Many of these "models" like wendy are paid to go out to specific clubs and interact with the people there.  You don't actually think that this chick dresses like that every day do you?  Um...no, she gets paid to be make chumps feel like they have a chance with her.  We do the same thing with our promotional company.  Most of the time, those 8 super hot girls that you see at any given club are there because they either get money or get to hang out with **28** (more money and more popularity).  

Hate to say it, but chics like this are fake because they are supposed to be fake.  They provide something to look at while the men in the club provide the income for the club...  Or there is the off chance that she actually likes to have people photograph her and wears the same 3 outfits everywhere and makes sure that all the photographers are taking pictures with her boobs on display for absolutely no reason whatsoever...

T

[zeo]

I was refering to people who aren't paid for it.... if you're getting paid to show your boobs, then complaining about people talking about said boobs just seems silly. Unless it's a complaint that money isn't being paid for said talking, then it's just greedy

[ThomasSchmidt]

Quote:

Quote:

Thus she's stated very clearly on her profile that she doesn't want to talk about her breasts, which I can perfectly understand. I even had a brief chat with her about how to improve security on her profile. But in the end it always comes down to this: If you post a bunch of pictures with your boobs hanging out, guys will react to it, and many won't show their best behavior.

I don't know this particular woman, but I would say it goes further than just those rude idiots.

When a woman (this is generally speaking from here on out) is pushing her breasts up and out of her shirt and then going the extra mile to display pictures of it online it's about getting attention. Sure, it's not the rude idiots out there she wants, but she wants attention from a certain type of guy she's looking for. Some ugly (in her view) guy could be perfectly polite, respectful, etc, maybe not even mention her boobs, but he will still be complained about because he isn't the kind of guy she wants attention from.

I doubt that she needs the-social-network-that-shall-not-be-named to get a guy or to get male attention, but I understand where you're coming from. As I said, I am still bewildered by her behavior, regarding her profile with 20.000 friends and quite revealing cleavage pictures.

[ltfields]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Thus she's stated very clearly on her profile that she doesn't want to talk about her breasts, which I can perfectly understand. I even had a brief chat with her about how to improve security on her profile. But in the end it always comes down to this: If you post a bunch of pictures with your boobs hanging out, guys will react to it, and many won't show their best behavior.

I don't know this particular woman, but I would say it goes further than just those rude idiots.

When a woman (this is generally speaking from here on out) is pushing her breasts up and out of her shirt and then going the extra mile to display pictures of it online it's about getting attention. Sure, it's not the rude idiots out there she wants, but she wants attention from a certain type of guy she's looking for. Some ugly (in her view) guy could be perfectly polite, respectful, etc, maybe not even mention her boobs, but he will still be complained about because he isn't the kind of guy she wants attention from.

I doubt that she needs the-social-network-that-shall-not-be-named to get a guy or to get male attention, but I understand where you're coming from. As I said, I am still bewildered by her behavior, regarding her profile with 20.000 friends and quite revealing cleavage pictures.

Does anyone else find this thread oddly amusing?  We treat the site-that-shall-not-be-named around here like a Monty Python sketch sometimes.  Maybe we should rename the site to www.Ecky, Ecky, Ecky, Ptang, Zoo Ping! [Goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv].com

Just my 2 shrubberies  

   

[ThomasSchmidt]

Quote:
Does anyone else find this thread oddly amusing?  We treat the site-that-shall-not-be-named around here like a Monty Python sketch sometimes.  Maybe we should rename the site to www.Ecky, Ecky, Ecky, Ptang, Zoo Ping! [Goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv].com

Just my 2 shrubberies  

   

Sure it is ridiculous, but I just comply to the censorship policy here by not naming that site. People were banned for just naming the site, so you better be careful with that.  It is funny that this site is banned, but a similar web 2.0 community like youtube is not banned, even though they also have many underaged users.

Of course, we could invent an alias for the social network that shall not be named. In reference to Prince, how about TSCFKAM*?
The social network formerly known as my*****

If TSCFKAM* is banned, youtube should be banned too. The same argument that lead to the ban of TSCFKAM* very much apply to youtube too. What's up with the double standards?

[Palomine]

Quote:


Sure it is ridiculous, but I just comply to the censorship policy here by not naming that site. People were banned for just naming the site, so you better be careful with that.  It is funny that this site is banned, but a similar web 2.0 community like youtube is not banned, even though they also have many underaged users.

Of course, we could invent an alias for the social network that shall not be named. In reference to Prince, how about TSCFKAM*?
The social network formerly known as my*****

If TSCFKAM* is banned, youtube should be banned too. The same argument that lead to the ban of TSCFKAM* very much apply to youtube too. What's up with the double standards?

Reality check here... no need for the revisionist history.

First: It's not 'censorship' ...it's the policy of the BEA Owner... our host... who provides ALL that the BEA forums offer to thousands of users for free, and has done so for 10 years now. HE bears the primary personal liability for what happens here, so if he decides that content from/links or references to certain sources/sites NOT be posted here simply to protect himself and the BEA, that's not too much to ask, is it? It's certainly not 'censorship' in any traditional sense.

Next: no one's been banned just for mentioning the name of these sites here. Doing so IS a violation of the Owner's user agreement (a contract that each of us has with him) and thus, mods remove references to these sites (as well as links and content too of course). If a user has already multiple violations on their record, and then posts ANOTHER violation along these or any other lines, it may result in consequences. Thomas is a good example of this: he's already violated his user agreement several times and received multiple temp bans, so possibly any subsequent violation from him (be it related to prohibited sources or not) could result in his permanent banning... he's already squandered a number of 'second chances.' Violations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and if you believe that the user's history of prior acts doesn't count, you're just fooling yourself.

Finally: fortunately for everyone, Thomas doesn't make or enfoce policy around here. There's no 'double standard' being applied here... it's the Owner's decision that CERTAIN sites create liability for the BEA... thus THOSE sites are prohibited, not ALL sites. Anyone with a few year's worth of memory will recall the literally dozens of underag3 posts sourced from now-prohibited sites. While that content may be fine elsewhere (the BEA doesn't have Rupert Murdoch's wallet for legal actions) they're not fine here... it's a matter of CONTEXT. That is why photos of min0rs are not allowed HERE (an adult/porn site of sorts) even when clothed, though such images may present little or no risk elsewhere.

WTF Thomas and anyone who shares his POV cultivates such a sense of entitlement and makes such a petulant fuss about a few limits required by the Owner is beyond me. If you want pix from those sites, just GO TO them... enjoy pix of underag3 subjects all you want... just don't bring them here.  

[ThomasSchmidt]

Quote:

Quote:


Sure it is ridiculous, but I just comply to the censorship policy here by not naming that site. People were banned for just naming the site, so you better be careful with that.  It is funny that this site is banned, but a similar web 2.0 community like youtube is not banned, even though they also have many underaged users.

Of course, we could invent an alias for the social network that shall not be named. In reference to Prince, how about TSCFKAM*?
The social network formerly known as my*****

If TSCFKAM* is banned, youtube should be banned too. The same argument that lead to the ban of TSCFKAM* very much apply to youtube too. What's up with the double standards?

Reality check here... no need for wildy revisionist history as 'stated' above.

First: It's not 'censorship' ...it's the policy of the BEA Owner... our host... who provides ALL that the BEA forums offer to thousands of users for free, and has done so for 10 years now. HE bears the primary personal liability for what happens here, so if he decides that content from/links or references to certain sources/sites NOT be posted here simply to protect himself and the BEA, that's not too much to ask, is it? It's certainly not 'censorship' in any traditional sense.

Next: no one's been 'banned' simply for mentioning the name of these sites here. Doing so IS a violation of the Owner's user agreement (a contract that each of us has with him) and thus, mods remove appearances of references to these sites (as well as links and content too of course). If a user has already multiple violations on their record, then ANOTHER violation along these or any other lines may result in a temp ban. Thomas is a good example of this: he's already violated his user agreement several times and received multiple temp bans, so possibly any subsequent violation from him (be it related to prohibited sources or not) will result in his permanent banning... he's already squandered a number of 'second chances.' Violations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and if you believe that the user's history of prior acts doesn't count, you're just fooling yourself.

Finally: fortunately for everyone, Thomas doesn't make policy around here, nor does he enforce it. There's no 'double standard' being applied here... it's the Owner's decision that CERTAIN sites create liability for the BEA... thus THOSE sites are prohibited, not ALL sites. Anyone with a few year's worth of memory will recall the literally dozens of underag3 posts sourced from now-prohibited sites. While that content may be fine elsewhere (the BEA doesn't have Rupert Murdoch's wallet for legal actions) they're not fine here... it's a matter of CONTEXT. That is why photos of m1nors are not allowed HERE (an adult/porn site of sorts) even when clothed, though such images may present no risk elsewhere.

WTF Thomas and anyone like-minded makes such a petulant fuss about a few limits required by the Owner is beyond me. If you want pix from those sites, just GO TO them... enjoy pix of underag3 subjects all you want... just don't bring them here.  

It is interesting that you very carefully avoid my question regarding youtube. I have heard your reasons for banning any content from TSNFKAM*, and I can understand them on one level. It would just be too much work for the mods to check if every content posted from that site is definitely not from underaged users, thus banning the site completely is the way to go.

But this applies just as much to youtube and any content there, so why is youtube not banned? Youtube videos are posted here on a daily basis and you seem to have zero problems with the issue of underaged users and content from underaged users from youtube.

Let me quote the BEA rules:

Quote:
Do not post the following content in any form: [...]
Any content or references to content from **19**, **18**, and similar sites.

This is a double standard.
I can not post the link to Bobbi Billards official profile with 1 million friends on TSNFKAM*, but I can post videos of random amateur girls from youtube where nobody knows if they are minors.

Does that make sense to you?

[Palomine]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Sure it is ridiculous, but I just comply to the censorship policy here by not naming that site. People were banned for just naming the site, so you better be careful with that.  It is funny that this site is banned, but a similar web 2.0 community like youtube is not banned, even though they also have many underaged users.

Of course, we could invent an alias for the social network that shall not be named. In reference to Prince, how about TSCFKAM*?
The social network formerly known as my*****

If TSCFKAM* is banned, youtube should be banned too. The same argument that lead to the ban of TSCFKAM* very much apply to youtube too. What's up with the double standards?

Reality check here... no need for wildy revisionist history as 'stated' above.

First: It's not 'censorship' ...it's the policy of the BEA Owner... our host... who provides ALL that the BEA forums offer to thousands of users for free, and has done so for 10 years now. HE bears the primary personal liability for what happens here, so if he decides that content from/links or references to certain sources/sites NOT be posted here simply to protect himself and the BEA, that's not too much to ask, is it? It's certainly not 'censorship' in any traditional sense.

Next: no one's been 'banned' simply for mentioning the name of these sites here. Doing so IS a violation of the Owner's user agreement (a contract that each of us has with him) and thus, mods remove appearances of references to these sites (as well as links and content too of course). If a user has already multiple violations on their record, then ANOTHER violation along these or any other lines may result in a temp ban. Thomas is a good example of this: he's already violated his user agreement several times and received multiple temp bans, so possibly any subsequent violation from him (be it related to prohibited sources or not) will result in his permanent banning... he's already squandered a number of 'second chances.' Violations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and if you believe that the user's history of prior acts doesn't count, you're just fooling yourself.

Finally: fortunately for everyone, Thomas doesn't make policy around here, nor does he enforce it. There's no 'double standard' being applied here... it's the Owner's decision that CERTAIN sites create liability for the BEA... thus THOSE sites are prohibited, not ALL sites. Anyone with a few year's worth of memory will recall the literally dozens of underag3 posts sourced from now-prohibited sites. While that content may be fine elsewhere (the BEA doesn't have Rupert Murdoch's wallet for legal actions) they're not fine here... it's a matter of CONTEXT. That is why photos of m1nors are not allowed HERE (an adult/porn site of sorts) even when clothed, though such images may present no risk elsewhere.

WTF Thomas and anyone like-minded makes such a petulant fuss about a few limits required by the Owner is beyond me. If you want pix from those sites, just GO TO them... enjoy pix of underag3 subjects all you want... just don't bring them here.  

It is interesting that you very carefully avoid my question regarding youtube. I have heard your reasons for banning any content from TSNFKAM*, and I can understand them on one level. It would just be too much work for the mods to check if every content posted from that site is definitely not from underaged users, thus banning the site completely is the way to go.

But this applies just as much to youtube and any content there, so why is youtube not banned? Youtube videos are posted here on a daily basis and you seem to have zero problems with the issue of underaged users and content from underaged users from youtube.

Let me quote the BEA rules:

Quote:
Do not post the following content in any form: [...]
Any content or references to content from **19**, **18**, and similar sites.

This is a double standard.
I can not post the link to Bobbi Billards official profile with 1 million friends on TSNFKAM*, but I can post videos of random amateur girls from youtube where nobody knows if they are minors.

Does that make sense to you?

Thomas, this is the last time I'm going to explain it to you, as a courtesy:

Some sites are prohibited here because the BEA Owner reagards content from some sites as posing an unacceptable level of risk for the BEA. That's it... it's his perogative. If and when posts from youtube consistenly represent excess liability for the BEA, the Owner may then edit the prohibitions to include them too. Personally, I'm not in any rush to see more prohibitions.

When you have your OWN adult website, YOU can make those decisions... for now, you have to abide by the Owner's discretion when you logon to the BEA. I hope you'll do a better job of that from this point on.

[ThomasSchmidt]

Quote:


Thomas, this is the last time I'm going to explain it to you, as a courtesy:

Some sites are prohibited here because the BEA Owner reagards content from some sites as posing an unacceptable level of risk for the BEA. That's it... it's his perogative. If and when posts from youtube consistenly represent excess liability for the BEA, the Owner may then edit the prohibitions to include them too. Personally, I'm not in any rush to see more prohibitions.

When you have your OWN adult website, YOU can make those decisions... for now, you have to abide by the Owner's discretion when you logon to the BEA. I hope you'll do a better job of that from this point on.

This site seems to be already included with the term "and similar sites" in the board rules, at least if you don't want to tell me now that this part of the sentence does not apply, and it is indeed only **19** and TSNFKAM* that are prohibited. If that's the case, then we can also post content from friendster, xanga, **24**, hotornot etc. Just like youtube, they are similar sites, but they are not explicitly listed here as prohibited.
Just an example: You delete **19** links here (**19** = picture sharing site), but you don't delete flickr links (flickr = picture sharing site). So it seems to me you don't enforce the rules of the owner when it comes to "similar sites", even though that's what the owner has clearly stated in the board rules.

If you don't enforce the rules to similar sites, just delete that phrase of the board rules. Or clearly state which sites are prohibited (TSNFKAM*, **19** etc.) and which are allowed (youtube etc.).

by the way: Stop taking my criticism personal. There's a simple reason why I point out such inconsistencies in the board rules and in your enforcement of the rules. It has become increasingly confusing for members of this board to abide by the rules regarding prohibited content, since there is no clear, coherent and logical overview of which content is allowed, and which isn't. And no, I am not the only member who noticed that, according to the messages I get from others who experience the same problem when they want to post pictures and videos that they've gathered from various sources of the usenet.

I believe that my criticism is presented in a factual and constructive way, due to the fact that I also make suggestions to improve the current situation and the usability of this forum, instead of just complaining. I frankly do not know why this pisses you off, as it is not meant to degrade your hard work as a moderator here. As I said: Don't take it personal.

One last thing, regarding your "when you have your OWN adult site" remark: I have been building forum communities since 1999, and I already have my "OWN adult site" - since 2001. I am no newbie who doesn't know what he's talking about. I have experienced that the best way to get users to abide by the rules, is *not* to treat them like children, but to present them a clear and coherent set of rules that's easy to abide by. In the end this will only make your own work as a moderator easier, as you'll have to deal with fewer cases of users who post prohibited content.

[siliconefreaks]

well said

[Carter]

 

Quote:
One last thing, regarding your "when you have your OWN adult site" remark: I have been building forum communities since 1999, and I already have my "OWN adult site" - since 2001. I am no newbie who doesn't know what he's talking about. I have experienced that the best way to get users to abide by the rules, is *not* to treat them like children, but to present them a clear and coherent set of rules that's easy to abide by.

Yet somehow, despite your non-newbie status,  you managed to break a VERY clearly stated rule with your first post in this thread.

You're being treated like a [censored] here because you continue to act like one. Most users go for years here without ever being banned, you've managed it twice already. A third time and you won't be returning.

Grow up.