Ban links to violent content?

Hagar

Personally I don't believe in censorship of any type.
Nobody can make you got to look at these sites.
If Boards.ie wants to put this kind of stuff up, it should be free to do so.
Then I will be free to go someplace else.

WhiteWashMan

Hagar wrote:

Personally I don't believe in censorship of any type.

now i think this is where the issue is.
its not a case of censorship. i dont think anyone here wants to censor anything. you are free to look at whatever you want.
whether boards.ie wants to have this sort of material linked to it is another matter entirely.

you can find movies other places, why do people suddenly feel the need to start putting up links here?

there is a huge difference between being told you cant look at something, and being told that you cant put something up on a privately owned website where that thing goes against the basic morality of the majority of the users.

Hagar wrote:

Nobody can make you got to look at these sites..

exactly, so why the need to put the links etc on here? this isnt the voyuer's network, and people have to respect others. if i suddenly started putting up linkss to god sites and spouting religious gospels, id be chastised immediately, my posts locked and my words edited most likely. i think watching people die is far worse than hearing the glorious word of our lord and saviour jesus christ, dontcha think?

Hagar wrote:

If Boards.ie wants to put this kind of stuff up, it should be free to do so.
.

what you mean is, if people on boards.ie do it.

if boards.ie do it, then yes, we are all free to fúck off.
if you do it, and boards.ie doesnt agree, you are also free to fúck off.

dont make the mistake of thinking you post for boards.ie.

Hagar

Nice work www.

You quoted 3 out of 4 lines.

The last one said If that shít comes here I go elsewhere.
Other people will too I imagine.

I'm not advocating that people should post this stuff. I would prefer the opposite.

What's with the rant at me?

WhiteWashMan

Hagar wrote:

Nice work www.

?

thank you, but was really a mere bagatelle

Hagar wrote:

You quoted 3 out of 4 lines.?

sorry, i didnt realise there was a line quota that had to e fulfilled. are you now telling me how to post?

besides, i think i mentioned the point that anyone could leave. please, you accuse me of some sort of deliberate ommission and then do it yourself?
bit foolish imho.

Hagar wrote:

I'm not advocating that people should post this stuff. I would prefer the opposite.?

i didnt say otherwise. i dont think i directly invoved you in anything, unless it was the plural form, meaning everyone. maybe youre just being sensitive?

anyway, was this just a post to whinge about what i wrote, or did you have another point...?

Hagar wrote:

What's with the rant at me?

here look. lets be friends. there was no rant. feel better now?
i merely posted after you and looked at some of your points. it doesnt mean you are a bad person or that we wouldnt be splendidly happy in a homosexual relationship. i only posted a reply.

but you did put down one line where you spoke for boards.ie, or so i thought. re-reading it, i see you didnt. my mistake and i apologise. you do indeed not speak for boards.ie.
and neither do i.

Hagar

Ah, Bagatelle "Remember that Summer in Dublin" Great track. It could be our song.

DonkeyStyle \o/

tbh I don't think "violent" is an adequate description... I think I saw the thread title in my travels, but didn't even open the thread on the off-chance that it'd be something rotten... from the talk in this thread, I'm glad I trusted my instincts and avoided it.

There are degrees of "violence"... a bloody fist-fight is about as violent as I'd go (assuming there was some talking-point)... other people could easily watch state executions (etc)... for other people 18's Cert movie violence would be unsuitable... simply sticking a 'warning' on it is bullshít, since how are we supposed to know who the warning is aimed at? (ie. what level of gore-tolerance)
I think the label "sick/disturbing" would be a better description.

I like to think of boards.ie as a pretty safe place, where I don't have to be questioning every external link I click... where people have enough cop-on to know most other people don't want to see snuff clips.

If content like this is allowed at all... how about a rule where the URL must be broken in the post, so people have to re-assemble it themselves... this might avoid the situation where an unthinking poster clicks the link before reading the discussion.

stevenmu

WhiteWashMan wrote:

there are any number of websites out there with voilent footage.
why does boards have to be one of them, just becasue a few people feel the need to have freedom of speech?
perhaps we should show a few peadophile home movies?
how about a good ol' rape scene. plenty of violence there!

or is that too much?

where is that you would like to draw a line?

snuff movies?

or is it a case of, that one wasnt too bad, so let it stand, but if i object to the content, like some girl who could be your sister getting anally raped, then that may just be a little too much for you to stomach?

which is it now? you want it or you dont?

becuase if you want it, go somewhere else. i dont feel that boards.ie needs to allow content like porn or violence, or any other practice outside of appropriate normal social behaviour, on its web site.

I don't anyone's talking about allowing paedophile, rape, snuff etc videos, apart from anything else they're clearly illegal. Other than that you seem to be saying links to violent movies should be banned because many (probably a huge majority of) users don't want them, and they're freely available elsewhere. I think most threads on boards could fall into those categories, I know most of mine do, I don't really see that as a good reason to ban anything.

In fact I still haven't seen a good reason put forward as to why they should be banned. Sure they may upset some people, but I for one wasn't bothered in the slightest by the link on AH. Why ? I just didn't click on it, and I fail to see why others can't just do the same.

Pigman II

If posts like 'Dinkheller-Brannan' are going to get you into legal difficulties then yes you should by all means definetly block/ban stuff of this kind. If you're just blocking it out of some prudish personal or moral choice then I think you'd be making a mistake. It's all good and well to say 'you can find that stuff somewhere else' but I can't imagine boards doing itself any favours by getting a reputation for totalitarianism and censorship.

IMHO as long as there's no legal implications and there is clear and suitable warning preceding clips of this nature then they should be allowed to be posted. As the clip in question proved rather than just being some piece of macabre voyerism it actually sparked one of the more interesting debates on AH.

WhiteWashMan

stevenmu wrote:

I don't anyone's talking about allowing paedophile, rape, snuff etc videos, apart from anything else they're clearly illegal..

so the line that you personally would draw is one at legality?

stevenmu wrote:

In fact I still haven't seen a good reason put forward as to why they should be banned. Sure they may upset some people, but I for one wasn't bothered in the slightest by the link on AH. Why ? I just didn't click on it, and I fail to see why others can't just do the same.

i see no good reason to allow them.

i dont see what they add to a community bullitan board.

is it just a case of 'because i can?' because thats not really an argument is it.
freedome from censorship? oh please. if they are available freely on the web, then whats the problem.

if the ommision of links to people dying is likely to drive you away from this site, then please, go.

i am also not bothered by the link, and nor did i click on it, but thats not the point. what you will or will not tolerate is not the standard by which this site is run.
i fail to see why you cant accept that other people just dont like such things, and cant seem to respect that.

Pigman II wrote:

It's all good and well to say 'you can find that stuff somewhere else' but I can't imagine boards doing itself any favours by getting a reputation for totalitarianism and censorship..

really? explain that one out to me.

people will talk to each other and say, 'you know, those fúckers over on boards really dont like having links or images to people getting shot, killed, beheaded, or generally getting carved up'

'really? what a bunch of prudes, im headding over to ogrish.com. that movie with the russian getting his head hacked of by a chechnian rebel really excites me/ especially the way you can see the light dim out of the russians eyes and you can hear him gargle, and then when he has to put his boot on the russians face to completely hack the head off. thats so fúckin cool.....
those boards.ie people suck!'

'yeah, they are suckers! them and their morals. no one made em do it!'



yep. i can see that conversation in pubs and clubs and meets and irc channels up and down the length and breadth of the land....

you dont need a clip to debate something. as for you trying to discuss the merits of an interesting debate, dont make me laugh. ive read some of your posts. midless drivel at most, all intentionally trying to get some popularity for yourself. dont try and mix it up with notoriety now.

rsynnott

WhiteWashMan wrote:

if the ommision of links to people dying is likely to drive you away from this site, then please, go.
.

This is really the key point. Do we really want people who get off on this sort of thing here?

stevenmu

WhiteWashMan wrote:

so the line that you personally would draw is one at legality?

That's one of the lines yes, I'm not sure where'd I'd draw others, I think it'd have to be handled on a case by case basis, taking into account the content of the link and the context it's posted in.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i see no good reason to allow them.

i dont see what they add to a community bullitan board.

is it just a case of 'because i can?' because thats not really an argument is it.
freedome from censorship? oh please. if they are available freely on the web, then whats the problem.

Even if there is not be a good reason to allow them, should everything be not allowed by default unless there's a good reason for it. Is it not better to allow everything unless there's a need to not allow it ? I seem to recall someone saying that when they are moderating they prefer to interfere as little as possible. Unless a situation really needs to be dealt with, it should be left alone. At the time it struck me as one of the more sensible things said about moderating so I tried to remember it. If I remember correctly it was you who said it, but I'm not trying to turn your own argument on something else against you (I'm not even sure if was you), the point is it made sense then and it still makes sense now in this situation. We could argue back and forth over whether or not there's a need for it here, altough I pretty much agree that there isn't, but I still haven't seen any reason why there is a need for it to not be here.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

if the ommision of links to people dying is likely to drive you away from this site, then please, go.

I don't really care too much one way or the other, but it was put up for discussion (and I think it's made a pretty good one) and I'm just arguing my side on it. If it's banned I'm not going to leave, complain or start some kind of silly protest.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i am also not bothered by the link, and nor did i click on it, but thats not the point. what you will or will not tolerate is not the standard by which this site is run.
i fail to see why you cant accept that other people just dont like such things, and cant seem to respect that.

I can accept and respect that, but I don't see why they/you feel the need to remove it from boards, I don't see how that will improve boards or anything else. That's really what it comes down to for me, I don't think it does any harm here, it's not forced down anyones throat and I don't see any benefit to anyone if it's banned.

nesf

Personally, I'm neutral. I don't care either way. I don't enjoy watching such films, but I don't find them horribly disturbing either.


However. People seem to have an issue with certain content not being allowed on here. Seriously, just get over it and learn to use google. Boards.ie is not the internet. What's not allowed here is not blocked from you forever.

Like any discussion community, this place has rules on many things. If you find some of the rules to not be to your liking then have a look around and find somewhere closer to your own tastes. Or do like everyone else on here and just learn to live with them.

Pigman II

WhiteWashMan wrote:

really? explain that one out to me.

people will talk to each other and say, 'you know, those fúckers over on boards really dont like having links or images to people getting shot, killed, beheaded, or generally getting carved up'

'really? what a bunch of prudes, im headding over to ogrish.com. that movie with the russian getting his head hacked of by a chechnian rebel really excites me/ especially the way you can see the light dim out of the russians eyes and you can hear him gargle, and then when he has to put his boot on the russians face to completely hack the head off. thats so fúckin cool.....
those boards.ie people suck!'

'yeah, they are suckers! them and their morals. no one made em do it!'



yep. i can see that conversation in pubs and clubs and meets and irc channels up and down the length and breadth of the land....

you dont need a clip to debate something. as for you trying to discuss the merits of an interesting debate, dont make me laugh. ive read some of your posts. midless drivel at most, all intentionally trying to get some popularity for yourself. dont try and mix it up with notoriety now.

Eh I don't know why you are dragging 'man down the pub' and whomever else into it but I was actually referring to the opinions of people who use boards itself and whether they might not be so impressed that media that fellow members put up for them (whether they choose to watch it or not) is being pulled down because the powers that be find them morally questionable. To draw a parallel I'm sure the catholic church in the pre-60's thought they were doing everyone a big favour when they decided what the public could and could not watch or read but the longterm result was a public backlash against something that was obviously taking too hard a stance. Similarly if boards starts become so inflexible then perhaps people will start turning their back on it too. That is all I was suggesting.

As for accusing others of posting rubbish and trying to garnish notoriety I find that laughable coming from you of all people and I think you should look at yourself before you start accusing others.

The main uses I get out of boards is for a quick joke and query-solving. Accordingly what I post here is invariably of a jokey or query-solving nature (I even pointed you yourself in the direction of the More-DVD the other day!). That’s all I want from boards.ie and that's all I feel prepared to offer. If that's not to your tastes or good enough for you then I really couldn't care less tbh.

I do occasionally however like to read a good debate (even if I don't contribute to it) and the fact that you have to take a post from me that was this time actually a constructive criticism (big change for me, right?) and reply with another of your tedious rants and personal attacks featuring your usual weak efforts at sarcasm and based almost entirely around the theme of 'what will people I've never met think about me?' probably says lots more about you yourself and your own usual input than you could ever say about mine no matter how hard you try. I find this especially true considering how ill informed about me you clearly already are.

ecksor

chern0byl wrote:

Stopped picking my own nose years ago mate. There are better flavoured ones about. Im right though...so so right.

Wait a second, you're the one making the uninformed assumption and you're telling me who is right? Do me a favour and cut it out. This debate has been had over the years and this issue has been discussed at length recently so I have no patient for the ignorant right now.

WhiteWashMan

stevenmu wrote:

Even if there is not be a good reason to allow them, should everything be not allowed by default unless there's a good reason for it. Is it not better to allow everything unless there's a need to not allow it ?.

so the fact that people find it offensive is not good enough reason for it not to be allowed.
im confused?

or again, is it only things that YOU deem not to be offensive?

stevenmu wrote:

Unless a situation really needs to be dealt with, it should be left alone. At the time it struck me as one of the more sensible things said about moderating so I tried to remember it..

it probably was, im a wise and wonderful person, however in this case, you are out of context. the issue is not whether something breaks the rules, but whether something should be allowed in future. two different discussions.

stevenmu wrote:

I can accept and respect that, but I don't see why they/you feel the need to remove it from boards, I don't see how that will improve boards or anything else. That's really what it comes down to for me, I don't think it does any harm here, it's not forced down anyones throat and I don't see any benefit to anyone if it's banned.

and i see no need for it, and i dont see it bringing anything to these forums, and many people find it offensive.
so really, if you dont care, then you really wont mind if its taken down, and not put up again, eh?

Pigman II wrote:

To draw a parallel I'm sure the catholic church in the pre-60's thought they were doing everyone a big favour when they decided what the public could and could not watch or read but the longterm result was a public backlash against something that was obviously taking too hard a stance. .

but you too are taking something out of context. and thats a terrible parallel. no one here is saying you cant watch it. no one is dictating how you should live your life as you are suggesting the catholic church did. come on now, try harder.

Pigman II wrote:

Similarly if boards starts become so inflexible then perhaps people will start turning their back on it too. That is all I was suggesting...

boards.ie is a living breathing cvreature. if you leave because you dont like not putting up links to violence, no one will care. you will be replaced by muppet #345453
people complained when a swear filter was put in, but no one left.

perhaps we should allow people to be racist, just in case we are seen as too inflexible? maybe add in a dash of nazism? perhaps we might promote bigotry, you know, bums on pews, and pull in the masses (to keep in the catholic church anology you seem to like)

Pigman II wrote:

As for accusing others of posting rubbish and trying to garnish notoriety I find that laughable coming from you of all people and I think you should look at yourself before you start accusing others.

i have looked and i have known.
the vast majority of your posts are worthless rubbish. thats not an opinion. its a fact. you like being a the centre of attention. cool, good for you. but im not here to discuss my opinion of you. although you seemed determined to defend yourself against some invisible attack. perhaps youre not as confident as your avatar makes you out to be?
oh dear....

Pigman II wrote:

The main uses I get out of boards is for a quick joke and query-solving. Accordingly what I post here is invariably of a jokey or query-solving nature (I even pointed you yourself in the direction of the More-DVD the other day!). That’s all I want from boards.ie and that's all I feel prepared to offer. If that's not to your tastes or good enough for you then I really couldn't care less tbh. ..

youre a good man. thanks. but apparently you do care.

Pigman II wrote:

I do occasionally however like to read a good debate (even if I don't contribute to it) and the fact that you have to take a post from me that was this time actually a constructive criticism (big change for me, right?) and reply with another of your tedious rants and personal attacks featuring your usual weak efforts at sarcasm and based almost entirely around the theme of 'what will people I've never met think about me?' probably says lots more about you yourself and your own usual input than you could ever say about mine no matter how hard you try. I find this especially true considering how ill informed about me you clearly already are..

you know, two thirds of your post were about you. not the topic at hand.
but im glad and delighted that you have studied me to great depth. i really get a thrill out of knowing that a lot of people read what i write and take it on board. it makes me feel, well, kinda squigy really.

but this has nothing to do with the fact you feel that links to snuff movies should be allowed, and i dont.
i mean lets face it, just because its accidental situation filming, its is a snuff movie. people die.
did you watch the russian soldier one yet. watch it til the end. it will stay with you for a while.

Dave!

If people find it offensive, then why would they click on it? It's not like a preview pops up when you look at the title of the thread, "WARNING -- VIOLENT MOVIE!" Ohh the things that must pop into your poor mind...

If you don't like something, don't watch it... why should everybody else be mothered because your sensitive eyes didn't[sic] see something? Just... don't... watch... it.

"Well if you want to watch it, then go to a different site!"

Why? I don't go seeking out this kind of stuff, but if I feel like watching something I might find interesting when it's there, then I will. There's no rules against it now, so why should a new one be created? Use your own self-moderation and trust your instinct when you see a video called 'mangettingicepicksstuckinhisballs.mpeg', and don't watch it. Or do.

Is it a case of you not wanting others to be allowed to watch it? Because you find it offensive/disturbing?

chern0byl

WhiteWashMan wrote:

Absolute rubbish. if you knew anything, you would know that access to the sex and sexuality forum was based on the subscription base in order to control access and age restriction..

So charge nothing for it. Just make a CC mandatory to sign up. The money collected is a welcome and obviously a seriously needed bonus.

Boston

chern0byl wrote:

So charge nothing for it. Just make a CC mandatory to sign up. The money collected is a welcome and obviously a seriously needed bonus.

Thats a circular arguement. It does not prove the initial intention behind making it available to subscribers. It what you said was true only subcribers would have access, not moderators, and certainly not plebs like moi.

chern0byl

LiouVille wrote:

Thats a circular arguement. It does not prove the initial intention behind making it available to subscribers. It what you said was true only subcribers would have access, not moderators, and certainly not plebs like moi.

Not at all. WWM was saying the reason behind subscription is to control access and not to get some cash. You can still have that, if thats all you want and make it free. Mods dont need to subscripe at all. Controls are there to allow them access.

Boston

chern0byl wrote:

Not at all. WWM was saying the reason behind subscription is to control access and not to get some cash. You can still have that, if thats all you want and make it free. Mods dont need to subscripe at all. Controls are there to allow them access.

Your ignorance is making me ill. I know Moderators don't have to subscribe, I know they are allowed access. It is to control access, they want people who are subscribers, that doesn't mean just people who are over 18. Theres a difference. You know what the logs have been posted for when and where it was decided to go a head with the forum. $$$ was never mentioned.

Pigman II

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but you too are taking something out of context. and thats a terrible parallel. no one here is saying you cant watch it. no one is dictating how you should live your life as you are suggesting the catholic church did. come on now, try harder.

No I think it is a very apt parallel. Your point there only proves it more so. Boards is saying 'you can’t do that here'. Similarly the catholic church never said you couldn't leave a land you enjoy behind if you’re finding their particular dogma unenjoyable. I’m not suggesting people may leave simply because they can’t instantly get their snuff clip here. I’m saying they’ll leave because of a pervading level of conservatism makes the whole experience less enjoyable.

Remember just as boards.ie successfully subscribes to the 'like it or lump it' stance atm no one ever went against the church 50 years ago and all I'm just saying you could at least take into consideration the long term implications of the site gaining a particular reputation. If you disagree with that outcome or are happy with how things are proceeding then that is fine by me. I am just offering it out there for consideration and discussion.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

boards.ie is a living breathing cvreature. if you leave because you dont like not putting up links to violence, no one will care. you will be replaced by muppet #345453
people complained when a swear filter was put in, but no one left.

Again you're making it about me individually. I never said how I would react one way or another to a blockage I was merely offering a suggested outcome for consideration that perhaps many other members may be adverse to such a stance. If you disagree with that notion then that's fine. You didn't have to swerve completely OT and turn it into a character assassination.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

perhaps we should allow people to be racist, just in case we are seen as too inflexible? maybe add in a dash of nazism? perhaps we might promote bigotry, you know, bums on pews, and pull in the masses (to keep in the catholic church anology you seem to like)

Do whatever you like. I am just suggesting the possible outcome of a particular action.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i have looked and i have known.

Somehow I doubt it.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

the vast majority of your posts are worthless rubbish. thats not an opinion. its a fact.

No, irregardless of however imporant you may think it is, it's still just your opinion. Similarly I have the opinion that most of your posts are poorly composed, long winded rants that serve absolutely no purpose other than to help you let off steam. Again just another opinion.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

you like being a the centre of attention. cool, good for you. but im not here to discuss my opinion of you. although you seemed determined to defend yourself against some invisible attack.

Do I? I was on topic on this thread whereas it was you who introduced the subject of 'me' by accusing me of particular actions and motivations. I am merely responding to them, as is my wont.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

perhaps youre not as confident as your avatar makes you out to be?
oh dear....

How exactly do you read confidence from an avatar? You must have some reality issues if you're starting to see personality traits in those little cartoon pictures. Or perhaps should I be reading something deep and meaningful about you from your PinkPanther avatar? Am I not living the boards experience until I crack the code?

WhiteWashMan wrote:

youre a good man. thanks. but apparently you do care.

No I don't particularly care about helping per se but I do believe there is an unwritten karma system here and the more you help the more you are helped. I'll even help an individual such yourself on occasion if I can as I know it'll benefit me somewhere down the line.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

you know, two thirds of your post were about you. not the topic at hand.

Again it was you brought up the subject of 'me' I was on topic until you started making comments about me that were irrelevant to the thread.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but im glad and delighted that you have studied me to great depth. i really get a thrill out of knowing that a lot of people read what i write and take it on board. it makes me feel, well, kinda squigy really.

Sarcasm aside, I know you do. That’s the saddest part really.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but this has nothing to do with the fact you feel that links to snuff movies should be allowed, and i dont.

Yes, it had everything to do with that fact. That was of course until you started sidetracking it by making irrelevant & incorrect comments about motivation.

chern0byl

LiouVille wrote:

Your ignorance is making me ill..

A wee bit melodramatic but i'll curb my ignorance around ya in future Liou.

LiouVille wrote:

It is to control access, they want people who are subscribers, that doesn't mean just people who are over 18. Theres a difference.

I know. Asking someone to produce their cc details without charging still controls access.

stevenmu

WhiteWashMan wrote:

so the fact that people find it offensive is not good enough reason for it not to be allowed.
im confused?

or again, is it only things that YOU deem not to be offensive?

There's all different kinds of offensive.

Personal abuse is offensive, where people call each other names etc, I'm making an assumption here but I'd guess that's banned because it turns threads into flamewars and destroys conversations, not in case anybodies feelings get hurt.

Many people get offended in discussions on the north when people make posts in favour of Sinn Fein or the IRA, but that's a political view and considered ok as long it's in context and not spammed anywhere and everywhere.

Similarly people get offended when others post against immigration or in favour of abortion and I could go on and on. There's countless things people can get offended by, as you like asking, where do you draw the line ? And, at what stage is the line there to improve boards and at what point is it just there for the sake of political correctness ?

I don't think, in this case anyway, that a subjects offensiveness is enough of a reason to not allow it, and it's not just what I deem offensive or not, if people know they find something offensive all they have to do is not click on it. In this case they would have had to click at least twice, once for the thread and then once again to follow the link. If I walk into a delhi, ask for a tuna sandwich, eat it and then decide I don't like tuna, I don't demand the delhi stops serving it, I just don't ask for tuna anymore. Ok, that is way more trivial than a recording of someones death, but I think the point still holds.

If people are somehow offended by it's presence on boards even if they don't see it themselves, then I'll concede that perhaps it should be banned*, and add to my belief that everybody except me is extremely strange. I really don't see how people can affected by it without even seeing/hearing it.



(*of course I realise that means absolutely nothing and it's up to the admins to decide what they want on their site, but this is feedback after all)

Boston

chern0byl wrote:

A wee bit melodramatic but i'll curb my ignorance around ya in future Liou.



I know. Asking someone to produce their cc details without charging still controls access.

For the love of god. subscribers have access for the same reason moderators have access. They contribute in a very clear way to the community. That is the control the admins want to excert. Not just age control. They want to keep muppets out.

chern0byl

LiouVille wrote:

For the love of god. subscribers have access for the same reason moderators have access. They contribute in a very clear way to the community. That is the control the admins want to excert. Not just age control. They want to keep muppets out.

I do understand that and i know a monthly fee goes all the way to controlling that. You can achieve pretty much the same thing by just have a CC check in place with no fee. Maybe a charge for acting the muppet[whatever a moderator deems as muppetry].

Boston

chern0byl wrote:

I do understand that and i know a monthly fee goes all the way to controlling that. You can achieve pretty much the same thing by just have a CC check in place with no fee. Maybe a charge for acting the muppet[whatever a moderator deems as muppetry].

No you don't understand and you're not listening to what I'm saying either. I'm starting to understand why ecksor gets so pissed off. A cc says nothign about how you feel towards the community or who you are. No one is paying for access to the sex forum anymore. Their paying to help boards.

chern0byl

LiouVille wrote:

No you don't understand and you're not listening to what I'm saying either. I'm starting to understand why ecksor gets so pissed off. A cc says nothign about how you feel towards the community or who you are. No one is paying for access to the sex forum anymore. Their paying to help boards.

paying to help the site...thats what i said originally. Listen, i dont see the difference in what we are saying. Im not going to keep going bck and foward with ya.

WhiteWashMan

chern0byl wrote:

Not at all. WWM was saying the reason behind subscription is to control access and not to get some cash. You can still have that, if thats all you want and make it free. Mods dont need to subscripe at all. Controls are there to allow them access.

thats not what i said. subscription is not there to control access.

it just happened that it is a good way to control access in a certain forum. there is a vast difference.

come on now. dont try and twist what i say.

regi

Oh my god, shut up.