Page #3
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
New Comment Rating: 1 Similar topics: 1.The STAR CHAMBER 2.Sneaker Photo Update 3.Why does he keep visiting my page? 4.The perverse joy of getting a member deleted 5.Here's a thought regarding the infamous Star Chamber "message"... Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Here is my thought,Why couldn't there be a category for (internet photos I like) in the up load section? Then people could upload photos from the internet with out a problem.
Along with some guide lines on how to do it correctly.
1)all internet photos to be placed here.
2)If posted under any other caption person gets a notice and 24 hours to change the category or face deletion.
3) Photo must state that it is not a photo of them self but of some thing/or who they like.
I'm sure it would have to be put to admin for approval and tweaked so as for it to work on this site.
But I think it would work so long as EVERY ONE abides by the rules.
If any one has any additional thoughts,please feel free to add them here.
Just my thoughts as to how to eliminate an ongoing issue.
Since most internet photos are copyrighted, you are not allowed to repost them on a public site such as this, without the express permission of the owner of the photo, which I doubt virtually anybody gets. Therefore the category you are proposing is still trouble.
This is exactly why it would not work. The key words being EVERY ONE.
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. ~ Eldridge Cleaver
I came up with. I refuse to be involved with all the childish antics that happens within the review panel,and this was my way
of hoping to resolve the problem!
It is a shame that so many ADULTS act in this manner!!
/forum/thread.php?id=316
"Especially beware of the members who post fakes from the internet instead of their own pics. A person who uses fakes is dishonest by default and thus unreliable and unpredictable by default."
/faq.html
"Legally you can post only the pics you have legal rights for. Generally those are pics of yourself you made personally or pics of other persons you made personally and have their implicit permission to publish the photos.
It's not exactly legal and is not permitted to post pics taken from internet on this site as in 99.99% cases you do not have authorization of the producer of those pics to publish them.
However, the site administration cannot know all the millions pics in internet and in most cases cannot tell if the pics are your own or taken from the net. Which means that only in case when someone report stolen/internet pics to the administration or in case when administration accidentally notice stolen/internet pics the account that posted them gets deleted.
If you notice someone posting internet pics, you can always report this. There is a "report abuse" button below every pic and a "report member" button on every member page.
Also, the administration cannot just take your word on it without any proof. Indeed if the member has obviously internet pics from different sources, proper actions will be taken. But in other cases the administration require some kind of proof - links to the pages with original images for example."
with emphasis on "Indeed if the member has obviously internet pics from different sources, proper actions will be taken."
/forum/thread.php?id=24475
Or this, which is posted on the Abuse page;
If the abuse is not grave please try to convince the member to delete the pics in question before deleting him entirely Last phrase is meant for profiles posting internet porn as internet porn, i.e. who do not pretend to be people on those photos or friends of those people. It is NOT meant for accounts that start their life on the site posting internet porn pretending it's them.
Or this, it was a response I received via a private message that I sent;
Dec 6, 22:21 admin: I do not care much about people posting internet pics unless they are pretending to be someone they are not, but I also do not care if non-paid member who does not have many friends gets deleted for posting them. I did not care if this member stays or gets deleted so I let members decide this and that's my consistency in this particular case.
Dec 6, 22:01 bella!: Too late, he has been deleted.
Dec 6, 21:58 bella!: What about **** and ****, those two post Internet pics and I know that **** cannot be reported. There's no consistency with what you will allow or tolerate.
So as of 12-06-2015, his position is that he does not care much UNLESS they are pretending to be someone they are not.
The Admin's ***OFFICIAL*** position is pretty gosh-darn clear (his personal position may not reflect his official position)
And, because I know you will attack over the forum link I posted, I posted that because members are directed to read it on the member support page (which makes it an official admin message for me).
/support.php
Admin doesn't direct members to read the forum post you linked or his PM to you.
As I know you like to think of yourself as a thinker and reasonable person Bella, I'm sure the above logic will make perfect sense to you!
So, you are saying all those posts of yours are lies with your reply above?!
In the event that it wasn't actually you then I apologize for any trauma on your part from the incident.
I have no wish to get on anyones bad side here, but I can snark with the best of them when I need to.
The members should be removed from the "abuse" process, save reporting -- this is Admin's site and he should be the final arbiter of all member's status'.
Finally end all this bullshit...
People take things to seriously; Being able to vote on member's fate should be taken seriously. 1) It's sad that there is/are member(s) that get pissy when things don't progress their way. 2) It's sad that member(s) send private messages to their supporters/friends belittling member(s) because of the vote that is made. 3) It's sad that admin has stated that he really does not care whether internet pictures are posted as long as it not the intention of the poster of being deceptive. 4) It's sad that even when admin's thoughts are printed clearly on the evaluation page that some voting members pretty much say, "fu@k-it" I'm going rogue and will disregard what his guidelines are. 5) It's sad that when the reported member removes the "violating" picture(s) that there are still the same group of panel members that will continue to vote to delete! What's up with that?
Yes, there are cliques, yes, there is infighting and complaining. I would like to think that you will reconsider weighing in on the evaluation panel without fear of being assaulted for not "voting properly". Everyone's vote does matter!
Another interesting and busy day for the evaluation panel.
Please note that one member, who posts pictures found on the Internet, reported another member for posting a picture from the Internet. This is like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? The reported member does not claim the picture to be of him and on another matter, admin said the following;
Dec 6, 22:21 admin: I do not care much about people posting internet pics unless they are pretending to be someone they are not, but I also do not care if non-paid member who does not have many friends gets deleted for posting them. I did not care if this member stays or gets deleted so I let members decide this and that's my consistency in this particular case.
I'm not sure whether the panel members aren't convinced that the reported member has enough friends or whether they've checked with admin to see if the reported member has ever paid. Hmmmmmmm........
A 2+ year member was also reported for posting a picture found on the Internet. She was contacted by a panel member and deleted the "offending" picture, yet the POSSE continues to vote to delete. What the heck!?#!@
--------------------------------------- added after 4 hours
Looks like one of the voting members decided to retract her delete vote when Big9inch21 questioned why members still continued to vote to delete once the "violation" was resolved by way of the picture being deleted. Apparently, some voting members will be fair only after they are called out on their actions.
These are the blogs that were reported as objectionable.
/blogs/28393.html
/blogs/28394.html
--------------------------------------- added after 23 hours
Is a particular member stalking or attempting to intimidate new members?
If nothing else, he's not being truthful. The member was referred to the evaluation panel because of what BB perceived to be racist and sexist blogs but panel members were in agreement, the new member was only stating her preference. BB, why harass her or any of the new membership? Why not create your own website, call it DOGS, DUDES and NUDES and monitor it to your heart's content.
/blogs/28399.html
STOP HARASSING MEMBERS!
Big Bother was busy today, yes, busy protecting the site from, you guessed it, "fakes". Big Bother fails to realize that admin is not adverse to members posting pictures from the internet as long as they do not claim to be them. It's so sad that he thinks that he or his posse provide the ultimate due process. They just fail to recognize that they are not following admin's guidelines and I'm waiting for them to f-up and delete someone without just cause......
By the way, if anyone received a private message from Big Bother referring to me the Defender of Fakes, I would really like to assume the title of PHoenix of PHairness or Feenix of Fairness......
Do members really get deleted for a private picture ?
I guess they do now....
--------------------------------------- added after 26 minutes
And this is posted on the reported members page...
JohnS wrote (Nov 20, 01:05):
Please delete the web derived images, both public and private, including the female on the beach as that is against group rules.
Oh John.....where do get your authority to tell people that they cannot post web pics in private ?.....
The picture was PRIVATE.
Big Bother loathes private things of all kinds.
Funny that when Big Bother has his private stuff mentioned how much of a hissy fit he throws....
And interesting referral made yesterday.... a member was referred to the evaluation panel for "Il.legal image" because the female looked un.derage. The picture was not titled to suggest a tender age therfore, no proof. The first voting member voted to delete with the comment that the reported member's gallery had Internet pics. I voted NO ABUSE with the comment that there was no proof that the member was un,derage and *IF* he was being referred for posting web derived pic, links should have been provided.
Fast forward to today, guess who went through 14 pages, yes, PAGES of the member's gallery and found external links. But the comment provided made me laugh; "How many of you actually bothered to check the gallery......"
made my own decision and voted accordingly
I voted NO ABUSE.... on the original complaint
I'm curious if anyone has ever been on a real jury. You cannot factor in anything other than the charges and the facts presented. NOTHING ELSE. My vote was not made because of a few jpeg pictures presented 8 votes in but on the original charge made, that the picture uploaded looked like someone too young ( and that picture was removed ). I wonder who uploaded the 3 additional pictures that were later presented and are being voted on?
--------------------------------------- added after 5 minutes
What I also found amusing is that one of the links provided was a selfie site. Can you imagine being deleted for posting on a selfie site!
only registered users can see external links
Please see what's going on today.
As you will see, a brand new member has posted a picture from another member's gallery. What's interesting is that the first voting member has identified that the picture was originally posted by bk12345, /member.php?w=7988 AND that the reported member had uploaded other web derived pictures. What the what is going on? Why did the first member vote NO ABUSE? He consistently refers questionable members aka "fakes" on a daily basis yet when presented with a picture stealing fake, he votes NO ABUSE. This inconsistency and sour grapes attitude has got to stop and because of that, I have sent a private message to admin stating so. The member's voting privileges need to be revoked and revoked immediately.
--------------------------------------- added after 23 minutes
Aww, you were too late because the spineless asshat has gone in and amended his vote. I wonder if me contacting admin then sending him/JohnS confirmation that I had done so. But it's your lucky day, I saved the ORIGINAL vote and the ORIGINAL comment. For your reading pleasure.....
: Type: Copyright/Stolen Member pussylover Reported by palunko at 27,Oct 09:52 Rating: 0
Violating Images:
Explanation: I think this member post pics of other members, for example /rx9f2leuk61zpic.htmlsame as /pvmb0tj9wj7wpic.html and other pics also from some members like this one/y1isns9dhl6xpic.html only I can't remember that member...
ABUSE HAS NO GROUND 27,Oct 10:08 By JohnS
The above image can also be seen in the gallery of another member "bk12345". Also a gallery perusal reveals links to external websites on other images. I will leave this matter to the relevant people for their investigation.
--------------------------------------- added after 26 minutes
By the way JohnS, we don't leave messages requesting that members who steal another member's pictures, we just delete them. OR DID YOU FORGET, OLD MAN?
An interesting referral and a decent debate going on. As I commented with my vote, this is NOT the type of picture that I find appealing and admin does provide a "Tortured Dick" category. Clearly, this is a Photoshop'd picture so here's the dilemma that I find. Should we, as voting members, regard ALL Photoshop pictures in the same light OR only those that have gone "too far"? Then there's "too far", what is "too far"?
Keep an eye on member, potty, let's watch how this unravels for this 18 month + member.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 hours
The vote is at a +4 with 32 members voting.
It looks like you're going to be deleted, potty, member #454181. It's unfortunate that you will be deleted without even knowing why or given the opportunity to correct the perceived problem. Unfortunately, that's the way things happen around here, members are blindsided and deleted without being given notification and as quickly as possible.
Your Photoshop pictures offended many because you went "too far".
Let me put it another way: even the WORD 'bl00d' is censored on this site. A photo of a bl00dy penis, even simulated, should be no different.
And let's take it a step further, as maybe the objection is that it's ONLY a photoshop: should that matter? What if it's ONLY a photoshop with another member? Or with YOU? Or with a K!D??
Seems to me, if it's not permitted on this site, even the fantasy of it is not permitted.
Now, I'll shed no tears over members who've been voted out by the community, but perhaps a suggestion for Admin: when a member accumulates enough votes against them on an abuse report, their account should be immediately SUSPENDED (ie removed from public viewing) until YOU (Admin) have personally reviewed a deletion referral.
It should ultimately be Admin's call, anyways. If nothing else it would curb these playground politics and give all referrals equal footing.
It is sad that members are referred to the evaluation panel for deletion for flimsy reasons and it is equally sad that a good number of those referrals are deleted. Personally, I'm not interested in "tortured dick", it doesn't appeal to me at any level and I've said this before, I am not aroused or interested in seeing pissing pictures streamed on the "normal" page, either.
Clearly, "too far" is a subjective term and the voting members already have problems with the guidelines given by admin. With that said, I would be interested if you elaborated on the "playground politics". Thank you.
Geez, was I wrong! I thought I would wake up this morning to find a SYC member on the chopping block because her parts were found elsewhere. In another thread found in the Dumpster, a member identified yet another member as the SYD Pecker Inspector. The identified member not only inspects peckers and lady parts, add nicknames, too!
Let's watch and see what develops with his new referral.
--------------------------------------- added after 13 hours
It is sad that some of the voters don't understand the ramifications involved based on their BIASED vote.
Please notice that a longtime and active female member has been referred to the evaluation panel for deletion for posting "il.legal images". Please notice the date on those pictures, October, 2012, 3 years ago. What could be behind her profile name, is it an amateur website?
It took 3 long years of diligent investigative skills to root her out BUT she has finally been exposed!
Keep your eyes on this member and her offense to see how the membership votes!
Please read the anonymous message posted on her wall, it's at the top, the one immediately below JohnS's post advising her that it's against the site rules to post pictures that she does not personally own.
anonymous wrote
You should not allow your chat room to be used to discuss and attack other members.
I would love to know who her anonymous poster is (
--------------------------------------- added after 6 hours
Glad to say that the voting members got it right! Woo Hoo!
If you're curious who the active, longtime female member was who posted "il.legal" pictures that reflected another website's information behind her SYC nickname, it was ( yeah, I'm going to tell you as soon as her Homeland Security backs off and her pictures are removed from America's Most Wanted list......
/member.php?w=308404
(Everyone knows that the place to do that sort of thing is MAIN chat.)
It's also amusing when folks don't have the balls to post under their user name. When an anonymous, ball-less coward leaves a note on your page, it isn't worth the time wasted in reading it.
If you give that some thought, that would probably answer who the ball-less wonder is, no?
New Comment Go to top