RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (Full Version)

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



Message

Theslavetrainer -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/4/2006 8:31:14 AM)

Of course not, Katy. If  complacency was the norm, we wouldn't be Americans today. And it's only natural to improve something that, although may be good in many ways, can be made better.



WyrdRich -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/4/2006 8:38:04 AM)

      I don't understand how it works at all.  I've had three different pics up for my profile and all were approved with no problem.  My wife has had at least 4 pulled.  She shares the frustration of not knowing why. 



MisPandora -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/4/2006 9:01:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sub4hire
Educate yourself or not crappy.  It doesn't matter to me if you remain ignorant on the law.  I merely stated the laws of this country.  Which ALL websites have to abide by or just disappear.  I never said it was fair.  Though it is a fact of life.

2257 doesn't prohibit clothed adults or for that matter, the bare chest of an adult man to be shown.  That's the point that was being made...is that pictures that are well within the standard are being denied, however, there is far worse being flown on the site (granted, by a second-hand producer who is then responsible for the content, not CM.)



MisPandora -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/4/2006 9:05:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: sub4hire
There is a law that is now being upheld called Article 2557, that will explain why
you cannot find an appropriate photo.


Pardon my ignorance, what is that law and how does it affect a CollarMe photo?

Rather than give you the letter of the law in a long, drawn out post, try checking out the website of the Free Speech Coalition.  XD Freridge has worked her tail off to shoot down the 2257 legislation, but it doesn't look like it's happening.  There's all sorts of things on there, from amicus briefs on the legislation to a class action lawsuit by FSC members against the federal government (similar to the Nitke/NCSF v. Ashcroft case.)

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257info.htm



Mercnbeth -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/4/2006 7:05:00 PM)

Hey - Out new picture made it on our profile!

Thanks Mods!



joyinslavery -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/4/2006 8:58:29 PM)

Let's solve this problem once and for all by removing ALL photos.  Wouldn't that be best anyway?  It'll be beautiful.  I'm hearing John Lennon's "Imagine" on a loop in my head right now with tears streaming down my face. 

I love you man (sniffle). 



ModeratorEleven -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/4/2006 10:20:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Hey - Out new picture made it on our profile!

Thanks Mods!

While we appreciate all the thanks we get, you should direct your thanks the reviewers.  They're the ones responsible for your new photo being approved.

XI



philosophy -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/5/2006 3:19:49 AM)

i can appreciate all the points made regarding the voluntary natue of the reviewers, the fact that its a free site etc............what does seem odd, however, is the apparent double standard. Adverts on CM do not seem to be subject to the same rules regarding pictures as users. Is this true? And are these rules (both sets if applicable) available anywhere for guidance purposes?



IronBear -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/5/2006 5:21:33 AM)

Quite probably the commercial/paid advertising is covered under a seperate are of the legal regs. If that is the case then those commercial sites advertised or any site advertised carry the can for all questionable materian rathger than the sites who carry their adds.... 



sub4hire -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/5/2006 6:41:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MisPandora

is that pictures that are well within the standard are being denied, however, there is far worse being flown on the site (granted, by a second-hand producer who is then responsible for the content, not CM.)


Actually since the photo's are sitting on CM's server they are responsible.  Let's say I choose someone with anaked photo and ask CM to produce name, address and phone number.  What if the person hasn't signed on in week's?  How do I get their info?  That is why they want the info recorded up front.
How many people do you know who are going to be willing to fork over accurate info on themselves nude when they aren't even willing to give out their real first name?
Stef explained the reason behind why some get approved and some do not already.



WhiteRadiance -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/5/2006 8:03:44 AM)

What puzzles me is my main photo is much more revealing than any I have recently tried to add (which were of doug and I fully clothed.. no bondage, no collars or cuffs, etc)..
 
I do wish the reviewers would tell us why the photos are rejected so we will know what the problem is and stop trying to add pics that are not going to be approved.  :) 
 
 
 
 



stef -> RE: The Irony of CM "rules" (8/5/2006 10:06:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteRadiance

I do wish the reviewers would tell us why the photos are rejected so we will know what the problem is and stop trying to add pics that are not going to be approved.  :) 

That would come with a hefty price.  The tool that the reviewers use doesn't (or at least didn't when I was reviewing) allow for providing detailed feedback as to why the photo was not approved.  If the reviewers stopped to send email for every refused photo, it would take an exponentially greater length of time to process photo reviews.  People already complain that it takes too long for their profiles/photos to be reviered, how do you think they woukd feel if it took a week or more for the reviewers to get to their photo?

The other solution is to have paid reviewers, and the only way that's likely to happen is to start charging a monthly fee to access the site and that's a whole 'nother argument.

~stef



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125