143 Comments

Banned

just a though maybe you could reserve the 1st couple of posts, as if its ok to discuss things, then changes will soon be lost

Original Poster

Please remember also, this is a family forum accessible to anyone of any … Please remember also, this is a family forum accessible to anyone of any age whether a member or not.For their own protection, images of minors or members children, may be deleted if posted anywhere in the forums.

Original Poster

sassie;6097517

just a though maybe you could reserve the 1st couple of posts, as if its … just a though maybe you could reserve the 1st couple of posts, as if its ok to discuss things, then changes will soon be lost


Thanks

It might be best to let the thread roll with each or any new change

This is to be applied to avatars and to the newly arrived baby pics and to any demotivational pics? In other words ALL pics of any sort of under-18's?

Original Poster

I think we'll have to use our discretion.

Some exceptions would be for deals where the merchants have child models for their ads.

Personally I think baby pictures would be okay, but might have to include those.

Avatars aren't so easily recognisable as an image posted in a thread, obviously is much larger usually.

Banned

personally think this has been taked way out of hand, and if something like this needs to be stipulated then some should turn off computer

rayman;6097669

I think we'll have to use our discretion.Some exceptions would be for … I think we'll have to use our discretion.Some exceptions would be for deals where the merchants have child models for their ads.Personally I think baby pictures would be okay, but might have to include those.Avatars aren't so easily recognisable as an image posted in a thread, obviously is much larger usually.


I think then that the new rule should read:
For their own protection, images of minors or members children, may be deleted if posted anywhere in the forums.

The rule is there to warn people and that is good, but I feel that a blanket ban is not only not workable but also a great pity as we like to see the new babies and peoples' kids in general - surely if anyone has a worry about a particular pic they can then report it and have it removed at mod discretion.

Unfortunatly This Day And Age Its Become A Nessasary Evil

Original Poster

chesso;6097796

I think then that the new rule should read: For their own protection, … I think then that the new rule should read: For their own protection, images of minors or members children, may be deleted if posted anywhere in the forums. The rule is there to warn people and that is good, but I feel that a blanket ban is not only not workable but also a great pity as we like to see the new babies and peoples' kids in general - surely if anyone has a worry about a particular pic they can then report it and have it removed at mod discretion.


Thanks, that does make more sense.

Banned

chesso;6097796

I think then that the new rule should read: For their own protection, … I think then that the new rule should read: For their own protection, images of minors or members children, may be deleted if posted anywhere in the forums. The rule is there to warn people and that is good, but I feel that a blanket ban is not only not workable but also a great pity as we like to see the new babies and peoples' kids in general - surely if anyone has a worry about a particular pic they can then report it and have it removed at mod discretion.



Agreed especially as it will be impossible for mods to decide if a girl/boy who posts a pic is a minor with an imagination or a young looking 18 year old.

Tinks - your mention of age does raise the issue of what age groups they have in mind eg under 10 or under 12s? or under 16s?....

In other words what age is HDUKs definition of a child?

Banned

gari189;6098035

Tinks - your mention of age does raise the issue of what age groups they … Tinks - your mention of age does raise the issue of what age groups they have in mind eg under 10 or under 12s? or under 16s?....In other words what age is HDUKs definition of a child?



Yes exactly, it needs clarification as it stands and lets be honest if it's being done for their own protection, older children are the most vunerable and the most likely to lie about age etc.
They are also the most difficult age group to determine, a 15 year old could in a lot of cases pass for 18, etc, etc.
It's a knee jerk reaction I feel, with not enough thought/clarification.

Original Poster

Where we think it's necessary to remove them, we should. It's not a knee jerk reaction and it doesn't stop members posting a link to their preferred image hosting site with albums, such as photobucket etc. At least there you can choose who you want to view them and we'll suggest that 'self posters' use those sites too, no matter how old we think they are.

Wot a load of utter tosh....after reading a lot of the comments on "what should the site do" and "these people shouldnt be allowed" etc...the basis of which is understandable....however...

i for one think that the site is already doing what it can with the resources available, to allow as many users the freedom and flexibility, to maintain it as a family forum and use the site functionality without restricting it too much.

should we police everything we use? utter crap....why has nobody mentioned the parents allowing their children to use the internet unrestricted...what about starting there and placing the resposibility on the parents for a change.....do you know what your teenage son or daughter is doing on their PC, laptop or mobile phone every minute of the day? NO.....so what are you doing about it?.....a big fat nothing.....sitting on your backside on a forum criticising all and sundry....

Use some common sense people......take the simple approach in that if you notice anything on a forum or any internet website that is conspicious to illegal activity then do the right thing and report it....to the website, to the police ..hell go out in the street and scream if need be....

What we dont need is a line by line literal of what is allowed and what isnt allowed. That just negates the reason for the existence of common sense.

Most of you whine and complain about britain being a nanny state and yet most of the comments on that other thread would be interpreted as a nanny state action....

The vast majority of the people who use the internet are normal people, not mentally ill psychopaths after kids etc......yet the other thread (and no doubt the reason for this one appearing) seem to demonise the majority.......its those people that need a reality check.

like I said....take some responsibility yourself and do the right thing if you see anything untowards posted on a website...report it ffs.....

If it all gets too much for you then switch the PC off and go get some fresh air.

I'm sure the purpose of this thread has some great potential in educating users of the forum..but only if its positive, constructive and articulated in a manner where everyones interpretation of said guidance is the same.

That is all. Rant over. Thank you.

Steven that was quite a lungful:whistling:

Does seem a rather odd reaction from a site that is quite happy to allow "spoof" paedo avatars.

I missed the thread that seems to have instigated this but at the end of the day surely its up to the members if they want to post pictures of their children?

Over-reaction..I think.
I agree with Gari.

Surely if some saddo wants to see children they only have to go to the beach, or the shopping centres...
Why waste time trolling through thousands of posts here hoping to find an odd photo or two..

What a sad state of afairs...

If anyone can see something sexually arousing in the photos, then they need help..No names mentioned

I think it really kicked off because someone said they had received a PM from an alleged child perv asking for info,think this thread was to try and placate people as hysteria was ensuing

boothy;6098504

I think it really kicked off because someone said they had received a PM … I think it really kicked off because someone said they had received a PM from an alleged child perv asking for info,think this thread was to try and placate people as hysteria was ensuing



Hysteria? in Misc? Noooooooooooooooooooooooo :-D

boothy;6098504

I think it really kicked off because someone said they had received a PM … I think it really kicked off because someone said they had received a PM from an alleged child perv asking for info,think this thread was to try and placate people as hysteria was ensuing



It started when some rodent said they "liked" the child photos on a holiday thread.:x

Original Poster

guv;6098372

Are you on a wind up?So, the issue is the site is being used to groom … Are you on a wind up?So, the issue is the site is being used to groom kiddies, or collect images - so images are now banned.But its ok to post links to images hosted elsewhere - 'cos the collecting or grooming was only instigated here - but carried out elsewhere and deemed ok ?I posted a picture recently on my littlun driving a boat. You couldn't see his face, but it was obvious it was a youngster at the controls. There is no way on earth as a parent, Id post an image that would be "collectable" or "usable" by "those" types of people. I doubt anyone else has either. Use provocative images that promote paedos is ok though?I seriously think priorities on improving this site is somehow lost in translation..


Don't know where that came from, so not going down that road.

It's a simple addition and attempt to make the forums safer to use, it's an easily reversible decision.

Have posts from this thread been removed, as it makes nil sense? :?

Edit: After reading what sassie said, it would make more sense if the 1st posts were reserved, as people will be talking about different things.

Ok I have to say I think this is a strange ruling. Give the 'senarios' we have had in the past with certian members it baffles me why this rulling is coming into effect now and not when there has been an almighty uproar in the past.

Surely if we as parents decide to post pics of our little ones that is up to us. All members are aware that this is an open site and as admin has pointed out more times than I can count no one forces us to use it.

To me what this boils down to is a small minority of members going out of the way to agrivate, irritate and bait the rest of the community. To me that is where the problem lies not with people choosing to share images of their children on a 'family friendly' board

jennybubbles;6098749

Ok I have to say I think this is a strange ruling. Give the 'scenarios' … Ok I have to say I think this is a strange ruling. Give the 'scenarios' we have had in the past with certain members it baffles me why this rulling is coming into effect now and not when there has been an almighty uproar in the past.Surely if we as parents decide to post pics of our little ones that is up to us. All members are aware that this is an open site and as admin has pointed out more times than I can count no one forces us to use it.To me what this boils down to is a small minority of members going out of the way to aggravate, irritate and bait the rest of the community. To me that is where the problem lies not with people choosing to share images of their children on a 'family friendly' board



Right on the button Jenny. :thumbsup:

Original Poster

guv;6098698

So if its nothing to do with what was implied, I'm completely … So if its nothing to do with what was implied, I'm completely baffled.What was the reference to allowing links to images about then?Good to hear its reversible though. Can we have a bit of common sense then please and allow parents to decide..... and obviously if anything is deemed unsuitable, it gets reported and you take action.


That's been answered by chesso's rewording suggestion at the beginning of the thread

For their own protection, images of minors or members children, may be … For their own protection, images of minors or members children, may be deleted if posted anywhere in the forums.

Which has been changed already.

Thanks for the feedback all by the way.

Banned

rayman;6098621

Don't know where that came from, so not going down that road.It's a … Don't know where that came from, so not going down that road.It's a simple addition and attempt to make the forums safer to use, it's an easily reversible decision.



can you explain how doing this will make the forums safer?
I'm totally confused as to why this has to be done. Whats the reason for the rule change? By saying its going to make the forums safer it impies something has already happened.

rockyfella;6098544

It started when some rodent said they "liked" the child photos on a … It started when some rodent said they "liked" the child photos on a holiday thread.:x



i think your reading something into that that wasnt there in the 1st place, i saw that thread & indeed the post that was made, I've a feeling the guy that made the post is feeling pretty bad from all the flack he got about it in the respect of how he worded it. I like kids but that dosnt make me sinister or a bad person, in fact i like them that much i have two of them myself, im sure if the post had been made by a female member of the forum, it wouldnt have got quite so out of hand.

to be honest & i read in an earlier post this is all a knee jerk reaction.

richp;6099231

i think your reading something into that that wasnt there in the 1st … i think your reading something into that that wasnt there in the 1st place, i saw that thread & indeed the post that was made, I've a feeling the guy that made the post is feeling pretty bad from all the flack he got about it in the respect how he worded it. I like kids but that dosnt make me sinister or a bad person, in fact i like them that much i have two of them myself, im sure if the post had been made by a female member of the forum, it wouldnt have got quite so out of hand.to be honest & i read in an earlier post this is all a knee jerk reaction.



I'm not reading anything into the rodent's statement that was not intended,,
You obviously don't know his style of posting..
He does it to instigate a reaction from others. And again it worked.:x
(did backfire on him though)

Anyway.. Common sense seams to prevail in the end...:thumbsup:

rockyfella;6099304

I'm not reading anything into the rodent's statement that was not … I'm not reading anything into the rodent's statement that was not intended,,You obviously don't know his style of posting..He does it to instigate a reaction from others. And again it worked.:x(did backfire on him though)Anyway.. Common sense seams to prevail in the end...:thumbsup:



i do know his style of posting of which i choose not to engage in & yes i know some of the posts he makes do instigate a reaction, but on this occasion i feel some members choose to hound him, even when he appologised for the way he worded it & edited it, which in my mind was an innocent post. being a bloke I might have said the same thing, does that make me bad ? no i think not !!! :x

Banned

sassie;6097693

personally think this has been taked way out of hand, and if something … personally think this has been taked way out of hand, and if something like this needs to be stipulated then some should turn off computer



thats the point though...shouldnt have to be until a line is/was crossed

raptorcigs;6097838

Unfortunatly This Day And Age Its Become A Nessasary Evil



yup...so why encourage it!

StevenA2000_uk;6098231

Wot a load of utter tosh....after reading a lot of the comments on "what … Wot a load of utter tosh....after reading a lot of the comments on "what should the site do" and "these people shouldnt be allowed" etc...the basis of which is understandable....however...i for one think that the site is already doing what it can with the resources available, to allow as many users the freedom and flexibility, to maintain it as a family forum and use the site functionality without restricting it too much.should we police everything we use? utter crap....why has nobody mentioned the parents allowing their children to use the internet unrestricted...what about starting there and placing the resposibility on the parents for a change.....do you know what your teenage son or daughter is doing on their PC, laptop or mobile phone every minute of the day? NO.....so what are you doing about it?.....a big fat nothing.....sitting on your backside on a forum criticising all and sundry....Use some common sense people......take the simple approach in that if you notice anything on a forum or any internet website that is conspicious to illegal activity then do the right thing and report it....to the website, to the police ..hell go out in the street and scream if need be....What we dont need is a line by line literal of what is allowed and what isnt allowed. That just negates the reason for the existence of common sense.Most of you whine and complain about britain being a nanny state and yet most of the comments on that other thread would be interpreted as a nanny state action....The [COLOR=red]vast majority [/COLOR]of the people who use the internet are normal people, not mentally ill psychopaths after kids etc......yet the other thread (and no doubt the reason for this one appearing) seem to demonise the majority.......its those people that need a reality check.like I said....[COLOR=darkgreen]take some responsibility yourself[/COLOR] and do the right thing if you see anything untowards posted on a website...report it ffs.....If it all gets too much for you then switch the PC off and go get some fresh air.I'm sure the purpose of this thread has some great potential in educating users of the forum..but only if its positive, constructive and articulated in a manner where everyones interpretation of said guidance is the same.That is all. Rant over. Thank you.



'Steve' here in lies the problem...the VAST majority are ok, not everyone like you have read into it...just some. People should take responsibility themselves and NOT post pics of children unless face is obscured at the very least and they should be fully clothed. This has been asked for before and nothings happened, I guess cause the line was crossed tonight things have had to be change.
People really need to think about the info and images given away on here...a site is as safe as the USERS make it...not up to the mods to police common sense on this site but by sicking that rule on (like a lot of sites have) shows what they think

Adults have a choice...the kids dont

rockyfella;6098544

It started when some rodent said they "liked" the child photos on a … It started when some rodent said they "liked" the child photos on a holiday thread.:x



Actually was very clever what BG1 did. He made an innocent comment...yet people saw something entirely different...yet he's the sick one?, a wind up obviously but shows everyone what they are missing here

ODB_69;6099449

'Steve' here in lies the problem...the VAST majority are ok, not everyone … 'Steve' here in lies the problem...the VAST majority are ok, not everyone like you have read into it...just some. People should take responsibility themselves and NOT post pics of children unless face is obscured at the very least and they should be fully clothed. This has been asked for before and nothings happened, I guess cause the line was crossed tonight things have had to be change. People really need to think about the info and images given away on here...a site is as safe as the USERS make it...not up to the mods to police common sense on this site but by sicking that rule on (like a lot of sites have) shows what they thinkAdults have a choice...the kids dont


Yeah, agreed. Fair point. :thumbsup:

Banned

guv;6099482

By the looks of things, it wasn't very clever. I didnt see it - but I've … By the looks of things, it wasn't very clever. I didnt see it - but I've got the gist. I'm confused by what you say. It was innocent, but obviously a wind up also?Do I think BG1 is a peado? Nope. Do I think he is deliberately using peado related images or comments to troll? Yup, most definitely.Running 100m or filming in Hawaii is one thing. Using a sensitive subject to do it, is something entirely different.



maye...who knows its BG, but the point is surely you dont put up semi naked pics of kids up on a website

guv;6099482

By the looks of things, it wasn't very clever. I didnt see it - but I've … By the looks of things, it wasn't very clever. I didnt see it - but I've got the gist. I'm confused by what you say. It was innocent, but obviously a wind up also? Do I think he is deliberately using peado related images or comments to troll? Yup, most definitely.



i think your very wrong in this case ! He was naive if anything & the images were innocent images not the phrase you used .

Banned

guv;6099533

I didnt see the pictures........and by semi naked I assume you mean the … I didnt see the pictures........and by semi naked I assume you mean the bottom half was covered, then I dont see it as a problem. I wouldn't post one - but I cant see it could be interpreted as erotic either. (Though maybe that's a presumption too far on my part.)



ok...why wouldnt you post it? I see what your saying but why wouldnt you post this yourself

Thing is to you, me and 99.9% of people on here its an innocent picture....but some sicko sees that and it gets copied (right click - copy...its that easy) to a paedo site...then what?

guv;6099566

Sorry, could you explain this a little better?



he didnt deliberatly go out of his way to envoke a reaction to his post, you said

Do I think he is deliberately using peado related images or comments to … Do I think he is deliberately using peado related images or comments to troll?Yup, most definitely.



these wernt "peado" related images, they were innocent images of someones holiday snaps who wanted to share with the rest of the forum/friends.

Banned

richp;6099597

these wernt "peado" related images, they were innocent images of someones … these wernt "peado" related images, they were innocent images of someones holiday snaps who wanted to share with the rest of the forum/friends.



agreed...innocent to us


but would you post pics of your kids on a website?

Banned

richp;6099597

he didnt deliberatly go out of his way to envoke a reaction to his post, … he didnt deliberatly go out of his way to envoke a reaction to his post, you said these wernt "peado" related images, they were innocent images of someones holiday snaps who wanted to share with the rest of the forum/friends.



im sorry but your worng, we have seen bg use all sorts to get the bite, including talking about having under age sex, paedo bear avatars, saying nice pics in a sexual way to underage pics, etc,etc he said what he said for the bite, end of, there was no innocence he knew exactly what he was doing as he has done it so many times. As fr the new rule i really do think its not needed, the mods can already remove what they like and will continue to do so, so nothings changed really

ODB_69;6099607

agreed...innocent to usbut would you post pics of your kids on a website?



yes i have on another forum i belong to & have never seen this sort of reaction ive witnessed today !

sassie;6099622

im sorry but your worng, we have seen bg use all sorts to get the bite, … im sorry but your worng, we have seen bg use all sorts to get the bite, including talking about having under age sex, paedo bear avatars, saying nice pics in a sexual way to underage pics, etc,etc he said what he said for the bite, end of, there was no innocence he knew exactly what he was doing as he has done it so many times. As fr the new rule i really do think its not needed, the mods can already remove what they like and will continue to do so, so nothings changed really




what if i had said nice pics instead of the poster, would you have felt the same ?

Banned

richp;6099636

what if i had said nice pics instead of the poster, would you have felt … what if i had said nice pics instead of the poster, would you have felt the same ?



to be honest it didnt bother me, as i have seen bg do it many, many times, so to me it was just another post for the bite, if you had posted the same as bg does then yes i would have took at as i took his post, a post for the bite
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text