RE: the new ads and TOS

RE: the new ads and TOS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

soul2share -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 12:24:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LumusandtheLady Part of me wants to say, what if members could provide code to the admins to make the site "norm-friendly" [ie an option to block all images ] for nosy nellies? Then I remember...this can [theoretically] be done directly through every known browser. On IE for example, it's just Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> uncheck "show pictures" in the Multimedia section. At least, that's what it is for me, although the IE version here is older [Version 6.0.2800.1106]. That's inconvenient but it prevents monkeying with site code [which is as likely to introduce bugs as fix them if any VB is involved, or cause horrid site delays as maintenance is undertaken]. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. Let me know if I am. Nope Lumy-Baby, it's the same on IE7.......check the show pictures box.....or uncheck it actually. The ads don't bother me, but I'm alone, and my computer is in the bedroom, so if I have company, then it's still out of sight.

JustDarkness -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 12:30:43 PM)
I don't like some of the pics that are shown...but if we block all the ads the website might loose money. The website is propably free because of these ads....so I let them be...as I do with the other websites I regular visit. It supports them.

SageFemmexx -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 12:55:07 PM)
I blinked when the ads came up. If I wanted to see an erection, I would look at porn. So I do object to the pics whether the moderator thinks I have the right to an opinion or not. It's why I stay away from alt, I have grandchildren that wander through. Sage.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 3:07:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SageFemmexx So I do object to the pics whether the moderator thinks I have the right to an opinion or not. You were never told you didn't have a right to your opinion. XI

Stephann -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 3:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynnxz quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ Do you think that we should have the same opportunity as the advertisers to post explicit photos? Pay attention, Cali just explained this to you. The advertisers have the paperwork to back up their models, and paid a fee to be featured. You? Not so much. End of story. Erm... well, sorta. It's actually a 'revenue sharing' system. While I suspect only a handful of people know for a fact, it's more likely that CM has chosen which ads they wish to place on the site. When those ads are clicked, the owner(s) of CM receive a small fee (10 cents or something.) If you pay for the site from the ad you clicked, the owner(s) of CM receive a more substatial fee (20 or 30 dollars, or so; it varies by program.) It's up to CM to decide which types of ads are desirable, though BDSM oriented porn is obviously the best first choice, since that's a product many viewers on CM would be interested. Before charlotte became a model, we signed up through the Training of O through a CM ad. So yes, this site's free (supported by ads) just like network television is free (supported by ads.) And Lynnxz is right; explicit photos from ads all have model releases associated with it. As a free site, CM is pretty easy to access by individuals under 18, as opposed to alt.com (etc) where a credit card is absolutely necessary to access explicit member photos. The reality is there's no law (in the US, where CM is hosted) at this time that requires a website to age-verify a person, but it's pretty clear that such laws are likely to emerge in the coming decade or so. The decision not to permit explicit member photos probably has more to do with an attempt to maintain a sense of community standards, as CM (a privately owned website) is certainly entitled to dictate as they wish. If you ever visit alt.com, or a swingers website, the sheer number of cock-shots alone is reason enough to prohibit explicit photos. The desire to establish community standards, unfortunately, comes head to head with the necessity to run CM as a business. Explicit ads simply draw more traffic. Stephan

Raechard -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 3:22:45 PM)
I haven’t seen the one featuring Boy George lookalike giving someone head in a while come to think of it.[8\|] That one is for special occasions when you least expect it[:D]

piratecommander -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 3:31:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ I am not bitching about it... I am asking what people think/feel... It doesn't matter what people think or feel. The policy is not changing. XI If it has got anything to do with the Queen of England's new law , It would be useful to know , some of us can expose it to ridicule if that is the case and then have a few words changed which would serve to protect many people from ureasonable persecution. Pirate

came4U -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 3:57:58 PM)
The ads don't bother me, I can block em outta my mind. Also, a website is not responsible for persons who do not surf discreetly or be in another room when opening a website such as this with youngins wandering about and can take a quick gander at the/your screen. You are responsible for the content (especially knowing full well what you might see here) that you open. It also wouldn't bother me if anyone's pics were more obscene, if I didn't like it, I would hide the user from view. *also another cure: minimize your screen at the sides so it is smaller, no edges, no ads.

Raechard -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 3:59:33 PM)
I couldn't agree more.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 4:09:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick We go thru this every so often. The paid ads comply with the laws regarding recordkeeping requirements (just click on "18 USC 2257" under the ads for the link). It is too onerous for the site to keep those same records on all the users. Other sites choose to do it differently. Cali Interesting. I didn't make that connection. Excellent explanation.

lronitulstahp -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 4:18:55 PM)
quote: also another cure: minimize your screen at the sides so it is smaller, no edges, no ads. that's what i do... CM isn't responsible for where people place their computers or the lack of privacy that some people have. If privacy is an issue, prioritize. You just may have to sacrifice some CM time to protect little eyes or keep nosy room/house mates out of your business...whatever the situation. Nobody is forced to visit this site against their will.(unless that's their particular kink LOL)

LeMis -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/1/2009 7:33:54 PM)
I view CM when there are no underage folks or non consenting adults around.. and especially not at work [>:] [8\|] or if my fiolks are visiting here [&:] or...

windchymes -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/2/2009 7:13:10 AM)
I hardly notice the ads. I figure, it's an adult-oriented nasty-ass content (I say that with the utmost affection and tongue-in-cheek [;)] ) site, so I think ads for Snuggle fabric softener and Chuck E Cheese would look a little silly here.

sunshinemiss -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/2/2009 7:54:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ Someone mentioned this to me and I don't know if other people have an issue...OR not. If explicit photos are against TOS, does anyone have an issue with the explicit nature of some of the new advertisments (which are found on the same page as our profiles)...do you see it an an inconsistency? and angelika, do YOU have an opinion on it? I think that when one asks this kind of question, it might behoove you to express it. Some folks might think you are being passive aggressive or something by putting the question to people as it is. I'm presuming you are NOT doing that, so I will answer like this.... No, I don't see it as an inconsistency. Most things are not black and white, and seeing as I am not PAYING for this site, they gotta get money somewhere. Sex sells. The CMers, though, we sell the sizzle instead of the steak. Well wishes, sizzling sun

LumusandtheLady -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/2/2009 7:56:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard I haven’t seen the one featuring Boy George lookalike giving someone head in a while come to think of it.[8\|] That one is for special occasions when you least expect it[:D] [:)] Are you sure it's just a lookalike? Unless he's already in prison? Rain

GreedyTop -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/2/2009 8:08:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes I hardly notice the ads. I figure, it's an adult-oriented nasty-ass content (I say that with the utmost affection and tongue-in-cheek [;)] ) site, so I think ads for Snuggle fabric softener and Chuck E Cheese would look a little silly here. I agree with this

GimpinDenial -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/4/2009 5:46:56 PM)
You make a good point....

shivermetimbers -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/4/2009 10:04:08 PM)
I have no problem with it. It's a great site, and it's FREE!!! Everything is free, posting pics, posting on the threads, sending Cmails. You don't need some silver or gold membership to contact people, even just friends. As far as the advertisement pics, I love them, and every now and then go to the sites to catch a free glimpse of some porn from the trailers. I also don't have fear of getting a virus from going to the links that sponsor the site. If anyone feels the need to show explicit pics of themselves, by all means, send them to me!!! For me, it's a win-win situation.

MadameMarque -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/5/2009 1:38:36 AM)
If I had my preference, the advertising would be less explicit, rather than the profile pics more so. It's not that I don't enjoy explicit material. But, you know, not all of it. Like everybody, I like what I like, and some of what I don't like, I find off-putting. The more explicit, the more you either really like it or your really don't. As it is, now, it's gotten to where I purposely avoid viewing the ads, which I can't imagine to be the advertisers' desired effect. After seeing sites with and those without, the only advantage I see to allowing explicit photos on profiles, is that if a man's got no more sense about women than to advertise himself to them by posting some of the photos you see on sites like alt, well, I say, thanks for the warning. "Now they do it in the streets, and frighten the horses."

angelikaJ -> RE: the new ads and TOS (1/11/2009 4:06:30 PM)
Getting caught up... Steel, Thank you for your explanation... and your clarification as well [sm=flowers.gif] ........................................................... Sunshinemiss, I was actually unaware of how explicit the ads were until someone asked me my thoughts and feelings...and then showed me the images. They took me by surprise. My opinion is that CM should be able to have what ever advertisers they choose but I would hate for their choices to create issues for our beloved neighbors "across the pond". I don't have to like them (and don't). If given the option, I would likely not choose to post explicit photos of myself...despite the profound disappointment that may cause some of my fellow CMers. I do understand the frustration of people who feel it is a hypocrisy to not be allowed. Their opinion is no less valid. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Stephann, Thank you for your explanation as well. [sm=yourock.gif] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MadameMarque, You reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IIl3zSYL8k Thank you for the laugh!

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125