Page #4
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
An interesting referral made to the evaluation panel today. How will voting members address a member accused of posting a picture that was found on an amateur website? At the time that I originally voted, there were already 2 votes to delete, I voted NO ABUSE and added this comment;
"Although I have my doubts about the validity of a member posting one picture, the website that this picture was found on IS AN AMATEUR WEBSITE. SYD/SYC membership is not contingent upon exclusivity to SYD or SYC."
As you can see, the voting members are split in how they feel but what I find objectionable are the additional comments that are not related to the referral.
only registered users can see external links
Out of curiosity, did you Google Brittany O'Neil? I did and I did not find the young "woman" that posted one picture on SYC. Unless I did not dig deep enough, Google states Brittany O'Neil is 44 years old, the picture is not representative of a 44 year old.
Hey, my gripe isn't about the report itself, or about how members voted, it is about the additional comments that aren't related to the referral and that are definitely not needed. That's all......
"...accounts that start their life on the site posting internet porn pretending it's them."
I understand your logic and where you're coming from, the profile states she's 18 years old yet Internet pictures go back to 2013. As I said, I have doubts about the profile being legitimate BUT....do I cast my vote based on my "gut feelings" or based on concrete facts?
This basically adresses the larger point of your complaint against this abuse report -- specifically, that the evidence of the abuse that's been provided doesn't constitute "proof" -- I would like to repeat my response to Admin on this thread:
/forum/thread.php?id=24475
""“Admin: links to anonymous image sharing boards, sites like this one or personal blogs can't be a proof. You never know who taken from where.”"
If you meant for the panel to evaluate members as ‘fakes’ then you severely undercut them with this statement. Literally any website without a copyright is disqualified from consideration.
The popularity and ubiquity of ‘anonymous image sharing’ sites means that they are the primary sources of private images on the internet -- if a member were to misrepresent themselves here, and post images that they do not have express permission to post, the overwhelming likelihood is that they derived the image from one of “anonymous image sharing boards, sites like this one or personal blogs.”
**THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF YOUR STATEMENT is that whenever a member posts to this site an image that can be found elsewhere on the internet, the posting member must be assumed to either be the subject of the image, or have the permission of the subject. Moreover, when evaluating a submission to the panel, voters cannot rely on ANY site that is not copy-righted as evidence**
Seriously, think about it: there are members here who would post images they do not have explicit permission to post. **How are we supposed to identify those members?? With what can we support our position??**"
Saved another fake! I'm happy for ya!!
"As you can see, the voting members are split in how they feel but what I FIND OBJECTIONABLE are the additional comments that are not related to the referral."
For those who are interested in today's referral and voting of the abuse report/evaluation panel. Yes, the pictures posted are web derived, yes, the titles would suggest that the posting member *might* be trying to trying to pass these off as his but he has been a member for almost one year and hasn't been online for almost 24 hours.
The same members continue to vote to delete the offending member without the benefit of deleting the pictures in question AND the same members continue to want to give the member the opportunity to weigh the option of deleting the pictures or having his profile deleted.....
And in the same time, several people who deleted their profiles specified as a reason "too many fakes".
Regrettably I see no any pattern what I could do to stop them leaving. Their reasons as you see may be completely opposite and irrelevant to site structure and performance.
I frequently make purchases online and in the event I don't want that product, when it is returned I am asked "why?"
It's disappointing that only 20% of the departing members provide you feedback and what's even more disappointing is that so many members speak in gibberish!
Does it really surprise you that many people do not read carefully?
That is just hilarious!
The last vote, which happened to be NO ABUSE was at 13:47. Let's see how this will unravel......
An interesting 24 hours plus in the Star Chamber. Members being referred because their age appears tenuous and because some of their pictures appear on the Internet on amateur sites.
Can you believe that, members posting pictures on other sites!? One voting member went as far in their investigation to determine that the referred member uploaded 13 pictures in 5 minutes. With that mindset, members need to be cautious when uploading pictures....please don't go too fast, just because.....
I wonder if it was I who was referred.
Wait a minute, how long did it take you to upload those pictures?
DELETE THIS MEMBER 31,Aug 11:47 By ****
"Tiff Tiff" uploaded 13 pics in 5 minutes - pics that are already spread around the world. I dont understand why people cudgel their brains for keeping those fakes here.
This is more reasonable....this member could only upload 12 pictures in 9 minutes /member.php?w=497121
It is what it is....
To make an example - you may still find old images of "little Lupe" on google. See yourself. She's about 30 now and a singer, and many photos of her you will see are not so young anymore, but there are still old photos of her that looks way too young. There was even a case when a man almost got in prison for having those photos on his PC but it got kinda famous and she personally came to the trial and testified. She surely was over 18.
It's no wonder that people find models like that on the net and post those photos here like their own, because on this site young-looking bodies also attract attention. Naturally they get reported for looking too young sooner or later, because they really do - that was the whole purpose of people who produced them. Then reviewers take a closer look at them and see they are taken from the net. The member is deleted for using stolen photos. Nothing wrong with this.
It seems as though the member that referred Tiff-Tiff, spends an inordinate amount of time scrutinizing the pictures of SYC members and often times his "evidence" is nothing more than amateur sites, jpeg photos, blogs, tumblr, etc. I find it absurd to think that new members haven't posted elsewhere OR the possibility that someone admired the picture(s) and re-posted it in a blog or somewhere else.
I was looking at the new members and found this post, his post on a new female member's wall;
**** wrote
Please be aware that this may be a spammer.
What is the purpose of his post? If any of her pictures were found on the Internet, she would have already been referred to the evaluation panel for deletion, so that's not the problem. Is he warning members not to send her points, money, private pictures, WHAT? The word *MIGHT* says it all, he has no clue. Is the new member being profiled and targeted because she is Russian or just because she is a female?
Yes, in the end, the general concensus of the evaluation panel was to delete Tiff-Tiff and now she is gone.
On another matter, I think the capital "S" that the referring member sports in his profile name really stands for "Savior", our own true life, SYD/SYC Internet Savior!
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
I think this one was a good call. Just my opinion
--------------------------------------- added after 13 minutes
I'm not sure of the site rules and if a member should be deleted for stealing other members pics. All I simply asked from Tiff-Tiff was to please remove the pic. Made no difference to us if they stayed. But all I got from Tiff-Tiff was a deletion and being blacklisted.
Court sessions were held in public, although witnesses and defendants were examined in se.cret.[1] Defendants were given prior notice of the charges against them, and had the right to be represented by an attorney.[2] Evidence was presented in writing. Over time, the Star Chamber evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and its courts.
It is thought that in the past, the evaluation panel was run like the Star Chamber. Although things might look they are being handled on the up and up, matters were being handled in a se.cretive manner, that members were being deleted swiftly for petty or possibly unfounded reasons.
Getting back to the matter of Tiff-Tiff, for the most part, I will look at the evidence presented to determine whether it's "legit". I can honestly say that for the most part, when I attempt to validate the information presented, I do not study the pictures that intently and I do not believe that the many voting members that voted after me caught that discrepancy either. It was nothing intentional.
I can offer you this thought, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. When you attemped to resolve this matter member to member and for your trouble, you were blacklisted, you could have and should have reached out to admin for assistance. I will honestly say that my vote was solely based on the reporting member questioning the validity of her age as well as the one picture that circled back to an amateur site, tumblr and jpeg....
Sep 7, 01:39 bella!: Thank you.
Sep 7, 01:33 ****: L
Sep 7, 01:32 ****: Done! Thanks for the warning!
Sep 7, 01:24 ****: Will do
Sep 6, 20:39 bella!: Hi. I'm asking you to delete all Internet pictures before your profile is referred to the evaluation panel for deletion. You've been a member for such a long time, it would be ashame if you were to be deleted for posting pictures that you do not own. Thank you.
A member has been referred to the Star Chamber because she must be a fake. WHY? Her profile says she's 26 years old but the referring member seems to think her cooter looks 56! Oye!
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
Well.....either 3 votes came in very quickly OR admin waved his magic wand!
Like "cool" stories written by members who forgot their password and want to delete their own (usually fake) profile and are too stupid to just ask. "I'm a mother of this boy and his friend shown me this page, he's under.age and I'll go to police if you do not delete it". Or "It's my girlfriend, she's under 13 (wut???) and I have already reported you to FBI and Interpol" (about some photos that look way over 30).
Or some religious Indian or Arab with butthurt who abuse one profile after another with the same stupid false reason for every one of them. Like I cannot see they are a bunch of reports from the same person with exactly the same false reason.
All this stupidity, however, does not negate the fact that at least 75% of female profiles here are fake and most of them never reported, unless burned someone's ass in chat.
If you would kindly indulge me, how is possible to send you "anonymous" reports? It would seem impossible to do so. No, on second thought, I don't want to know.
On another note, you can be quite humorous. The last sentence made me laugh aloud.... "at least 75% of female profiles here are fake and most of them never reported, unless burned someone's ass in chat." It was actually the unless burned someone's ass in chat that had me laughing. Ain't that the truth! Thanks for the laugh!
Let's see what's going on today.
Currently, there's two members that are being evaluated, one because he's interested in "inzzest" and one because she's "fake". What's interesting is that the member and Saviour that REFERRED the female for being "fake" voted not to delete the member that spunked all over his aunt's ass. Is that messed up!?
--------------------------------------- added after 5 hours
You know, I have to wonder if the member who was referred to the evaluation panel for deletion because of his interest in discussing "inzzest" would have been handled quicker if it was a referral made by someone other than the member who made it. That probably sounds more complicated than what it really is....but to break it down, one prominent member who is always concerned about morals and "donkey votes", cast a donkey vote himself. WHY, YOU ASK? Simple, he doesn't like the member that made the referral. Can you imagine that!?
According to the new guidelines published in the current issue of HYPOCRITES WEEKLY, they are only "donkey votes" if OTHER people cast them.
(I'm not sure why anyone would want to vote for a donkey.)
There's only one issue that has not been resolved in the Star Chamber, it the matter of the girl with modified eyes. What's funny is "someone" *wink*, *wink*, that posted an anonymous messages on the referred member's wall, warning others that she's FAKE........ Could it be Captain Asshat?
anonymous wrote (Sep 5, 10:35):
Please be aware this is a FAKE account, it is a the latest return of a regular fake. If you comment you are only doing so to a fake.
I referred Justin Bieber to the Star Chamber and he was deleted quickly. Regardless of how hot anyone believes their pictures are and how confident anyone believes that other members will love them, Justin has been deleted and will NOT be able to visit their page unless he does so anonymously.
New Comment Go to top