RE: Don't care for these new rules

RE: Don't care for these new rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/17/2009 2:04:51 PM)
NZ, you might want to scan back through the thread and reread the posts by VideoAdminAlpha. Clearly, the site Admin have not only laid out the TOS, but also have provided the option for users to report offensive photos and have them removed. Your argument that the TOS somehow absolves anyone who posts offensive photos or shuts down any argument that they are offensive is not only fallacious but willfully obtuse. People have the right to post any photos they like. Other people have the right to report them and request they be taken down. The site Admin have the right to remove the photos if they agree they are offensive. End of story. Further debate is irrelevant and a waste of time.

Level -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/17/2009 3:10:16 PM)
Not to exaggerate or anything, but what if the colonials had taken the stance of "further debate is irrelevant and a waste of time"? We'd be singing "God Save the Queen", that's what. [:D]

cloudboy -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/17/2009 5:42:00 PM)
Not everyone's a volunteer, because the online advertising is paying someone's salary, probably not a Mod's tho. With all the embedded porn ads everywhere on CM, censoring a member's graphic photos seems seems an incongruous action.

NihilusZero -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/17/2009 10:28:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan Clearly, the site Admin have not only laid out the TOS, but also have provided the option for users to report offensive photos and have them removed. I am aware of this. I have not made any comment to suggest the dissuading of people from reporting photos quote: ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan Your argument that the TOS somehow absolves anyone who posts offensive photos or shuts down any argument that they are offensive is not only fallacious but willfully obtuse. First, I made no argument that the ToS absolves anyone from the consequences of posting photos (which could then be reported). Second, there is no need to use the ToS to disqualify the silliness of trying to argue against that which is offensive because, frankly, we are all offensive even being on this site. quote: ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan People have the right to post any photos they like. Yes, they do. quote: ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan Other people have the right to report them and request they be taken down. Yes, they do. quote: ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan The site Admin have the right to remove the photos if they agree they are offensive. Yes, they do. quote: ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan End of story. Further debate is irrelevant and a waste of time. Really? Debate on the hypocrisy of being on a porn site and whining about porn is a waste of time? Debate on the myopic tendency to qualify only what is attractive to us as "tasteful" or "on-offensive" is a waste of time? Debate as to whether being offended by a picture of someone's genitals qualifying as reason enough to insult them is fundamentally no different than getting squicked because you don't like someone's ugly mug in a picture...this too is a waste of time? This topic was not about how to better streamline photo preferences set forth by the website, it was to lament how it has taken a business position that puts its demographic into appropriate advertising exposure and how that indicates it has lost some morally prudish virtue. To that end, discussing any of those topics is not a "waste of time".

LadyPact -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/17/2009 10:49:51 PM)
NZ, I had a feeling you'd be hitting this thread. LOL. CM is not just a porn site, if it should be considered a porn site at all. In fact, doesn't the introduction on the main page say "The Largest BDSM Community On The Planet"? Not everybody is here for the links to the porn. Some people don't want it in their email or on their who's viewing page either. Nobody is saying don't post the pics that show the obsession with their own swinging richard. What we're saying is that we have just as much of a right not to want to see it as they want to show it.

NihilusZero -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/17/2009 11:34:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact NZ, I had a feeling you'd be hitting this thread. LOL. quizzical innocent look Wha? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact CM is not just a porn site, if it should be considered a porn site at all. In fact, doesn't the introduction on the main page say "The Largest BDSM Community On The Planet"? Not everybody is here for the links to the porn. Some people don't want it in their email or on their who's viewing page either. I understand that. I don't come here for porn (there are better avenues available for that). But, the curse of anything remotely involved in the BDSM/WIITWD 'lifestyle' is that it is treated, in legal and business senses, as porn. Even more damning to people who may want a 'clean' site is that the popularity of a site increases potential revenue via advertising. This, from a business perspective, is great news. However, because of the written content of this site and its demographic, the greater portion of advertising will come from niche-related porn sites. The irony for those who are not here for porn is that it is porn that keeps the site running at any degree of popular functionality. Only after those facts do I get into the philosophical queries of whether there is any fundamental "substance" to the continual talks of "taste" and "offensive" content and/or the arguments for them (which are usually just cultural mores manifesting themselves in unfounded bias). The way we make sense of it in our heads, of course, is to personalize it so that we can excuse it under the guise of preference (e.g. "I like shaved women and gasp had to run into a picture of a hirsute cunt just yesterday!"). quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Nobody is saying don't post the pics that show the obsession with their own swinging richard. What we're saying is that we have just as much of a right not to want to see it as they want to show it. Actually, the arguments seem to me to be suggesting that they should not be permitted to be posted where accidental viewing may occur. Now, while the ToS make specific mention of informing site members that, by being on the site, they consent to viewing sexual imagery the fora rules and profile picture rules are sometimes different (normally, though, the site's concern isn't about what is "offensive" or not, but rather whether what they display or keep from being displayed will keep them free of possible legal ramifications based on US 2257 regulations [I'm guessing the site is US based]).

LadyPact -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/17/2009 11:55:39 PM)
Oh, come now, NZ. Since basically the same discussion is being held on the general forum, it was not a surprise that you would come to this thread after I linked it there. Each of us knows the opinion of the other on the subject and it was no surprise that you would add in here. The revenue of the site is an entirely different matter. Of course they have to make their money in some way or the site wouldn't function. However, every single one of those ads links people to another site. Each of us has a choice whether we go to it or not, just like we have a choice in signing on here. Pretty much, I ignore it. I can't see the relation between not being able to post a full frontal nudity pic in relation to the number of members on the site. There is just as much potential for the membership to increase if it's not the explicit photo site that alt has become. It's also quite possible that if the site were 'cleaner' it would attract more female members (since we seem to be the ones who are mentioning the preference). If there were more females here, the number of males would end up increasing as well. Now, the advertising revenue aside, which I agree does benefit the members, I don't see how this translates to the main pic frontal nudity issue. Would you be saying that you believe such pictures benefit the membership in some way?

NihilusZero -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/18/2009 12:41:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Oh, come now, NZ. Since basically the same discussion is being held on the general forum, it was not a surprise that you would come to this thread after I linked it there. Each of us knows the opinion of the other on the subject and it was no surprise that you would add in here. Nuh uh. I had already posted here before the General thread went up. [:D]

Justme696 -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/18/2009 12:46:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: peppermint HOLD ON THERE ONE DARN MINUTE. When I signed up for Collarme there were NO naked pictures allowed. As I stated earlier, there were NO fuzzy pictures allowed. There was NO bondage pictuers allowed even if fully clothed. So don't tell me what I signed up for. I did not sign up to see another alt.com meat market. The day the porn pics were allowed and showed up already....a picture of my hand (empty...lol) was refused because it didn't show my face..lol quote: The Mods only have to make decisions on a few pictures instead of thousands I think it is an automated system..5 reports and it is gone. Personally I don't think the reporting really works. Because some people spam/scam already for a year...I report every message..and they can keep going on. So I gave up..and just let it happen. Normally I like websites to stay clean.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/18/2009 5:18:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Exactly. And this "group" (the website admin) has laid out what their interpretation of "taste" is and it involves you consenting to looking at naughty pictures. Apart for a few exceptions I'd think it impossible to lay down in text form exactly what kind of picture is or isn't acceptable. People have tried this and it ends up fairly convoluted and ambiguous. The extreme pornography act is a good example of this. So if a legal body can't create a non ambiguous legal text stating the exceptions to the act such as main stream films, theatre or bondage photography sites then what chance does a website have? I'm guessing that the reality is they don't outline taste but instead review each photo complained about on a case by case basis; that is to say you could view porn elsewhere that wouldn't be acceptable here. To create this idea of all porn as equal in taste or the magnitude of how extreme the content is would be wrong. I have not seen specifically any text in the TOS in relation to the type of image I mentioned earlier but also I've not seen similar such images here. However I'm sure there is a community out there that enjoy bizarre insertions, therefore you'd expect one or two to crop up here if unmonitored. There was a case in the US concerning dog fighting recently so if you think the UK or Europe are the only places in the world which has laws against certain content based on taste then you'd be wrong. Not sure what the outcome of that case was but the judges were deciding if profiting from dog fighting films was promoting illegal dog fighting. Some people like to train animals to attack one another who am I (a single human being) able to say that is wrong, other than the fact I live in a society where it isn’t accepted and is instead considered barbaric. Bull fighting for example is perfectly acceptable in Spain, videos of Fox Hunting or Cock Fighting etc. before they were banned. These are cases where individual societies and not individuals are deciding what tasteful is and isn't.

Rhodes85 -> RE: Don't care for these new rules (10/28/2009 11:34:04 PM)
'The whole "this site is run by volunteers so don't complain unless you want to pay for it" attitude is crap. There are other options, like asking for more volunteers to help. Or putting up a reporting system that actually removes offensive photos instead of merely hiding them for 24 hours. But neither of those things is going to happen. Just hide/block the offensive members and know that the site admins don't give a flying fig about it. That's the real reason there's no point in complaining.' I should point out that the site isn't entirely run by volunteers. Somebody has to actually own the site. That aside just because the mods and various staff are volunteers isn't an excuse not to do their jobs. They volunteered to do a job: do it or quit so they will find someone else that will do it. Personally any site like this that relies on volunteers is taking a very serious risk should that volunteer do something illegal or screw someone over. The site is responsible for their conduct. Theres also a ton of regulations about volunteers that can get a site in trouble. OSI had a major issue with that back in 2000 and I know a few companies that refuse to even consider volunteers due to legal problems that can easily arise. Anyways that being said... the report system is not adequate for the needs of this community. While I don't care about the cock shots and such I do care about pics that are of that nature where the person looks younger than 18. THOSE pics should be reportable directly to a mod. I have zero tolerence for that kind of thing. They should do something about reporting spam/harassing/illegal content messages sent to people as well. I mean seriously, its not THAT hard to implement a decent reporting system. It seems to me cm took the easy way out in regards to pics. I also remember when no 'questionable' pics were allowed on here and the only reason I can see for having changed it is they got so many they got tired of reviewing and rejecting them. Which is a little odd given the nature of the site. I would hope that cm actually does care about the kind of content they could be missing this way ending up on their site. That being said, as far as the ToS agreement goes... don't put too much faith in it. I've gone through it several times and shown it to two seperate lawyers. Both of which said much of it was unenforcable and pointed out several clauses that were outright illegal. In short those clauses would be declared unconscionable should they attempt to actually be enforced. Just to point one thing out...these aren't ambulance chaser types, they're very competent lawyers. Personally, as long as the admins don't try to enforce any of those clauses on me, I don't particularly care. and since I find it highly unlikely that such a thing will happen I don't really care. My only concern in that respect is that sooner or later some member might get angry at some mod for something and cause enough of a racket with webhost hosting cm and force them to get on cms back over it. Its more common than you might think. I just don't want to see cm get shut down over something stupid is what i'm saying. 'the site's concern isn't about what is "offensive" or not, but rather whether what they display or keep from being displayed will keep them free of possible legal ramifications based on US 2257 regulations' True, though on some levels thats one and the same. Technically title code 2257 basically says that anyone that wishes to sell/use/make/distribute/etc.. adult materials must prove (in the US this requires two pieces of ID that prove the persons age - usually a birth certificate and drivers license) the age of the model being depicted. Which so far as I know they (or rather the companies represented) do with the banner ads. However, technically they don't meet that requirement for the people with accounts on this site. Note the 'birthdate verifier' is not enough, or adequate and doesn't even work properly. It also doesn't verify anything. It merely records what a person claims their age is. In general this isn't a problem, however the ToS agreement does make an implication that they do sell peoples images to other companies. So, they could get into a little hot water with that sooner or later. I would be careful. Selling peoples pics has its own set of problems which i'm not going to get into here as this post has gotten long enough as it [:D] Anyways, just a few things to think about. And just to make one thing incredibly clear in case I haven't already: I mentioned my concerns with the ToS agreement because I would like to see it fixed because I don't want to see this site get in any shit over anything in it. Its not intended as 'criticism' of cm. oh and sorry about the purple text. I copy/pasted a quote and the color came with it :)

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875