Page #70
Pages: #1... #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 ...#163
New Comment Rating: 12 Similar topics: 1.RAND0M BULLSHIT 2.The ORIGINAL "Random Bullshit" thread is now in the Dumpster 3.RANDOM STUFF..... 4.RANDOM STUFF, JUST FUCKING BULLSHIT STUFF 5.RANDOM BULLSHIT Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Opened eyes? Whose eyes? Are you certain that whatever eyes you wanted to open were even opened? Did they see what you intended them to see? Or is it possible that they saw something else? Did YOU read what admin had to say about how the age advances (members don't overlook making changes, they can go in at any time and change their age to any age they want to be. Hey, they might even think to themselves; "Ya know, my profile says I'm 21, but when I enrolled 3 years ago, when I was 16, I COULD NOT pick that age. I'm going to dial back to 18, my real age in 2016!"
As far as "getting back to finding the real fakes", who is the "we" that is focused on the hunt?
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
It was funny as you voted to delete one, but you were no where to be found when 14 other members were reported for the same thing. Some of the members had been here since 2009 and still showed their age as 18. Wasn't that the same theory you used to delete the one member. Or did you go by assuming you thought you knew how old a member is because he had a stuffed animal on his bed.
You may believe that you opened the eyes of voting members by referring 29 possible minors for deletion, right on! You did notice that the majority of the voting members take it seriously when minors open a SYD/SYC profile, thereby voting to delete, right? But just my opinion, I believe your actions did not shine upon you in a favorable manner.
You fail to recognize that I was 1 of MANY voters who voted to delete RobinEdison. And if you recall, I was way down the voting totem pole, 8th, 9th, 10th voter and I was certainly not the first member to vote to delete him. So what is your real beef with me?
I still feel that you need to do some thinking on this matter and I'm not talking about subtracting the number of years that a member has been active from the age that is specified on their profile. And as for proof, why not ask someone whose opinion you value just what form of proof would be acceptable?
1) Any member under 18 should be deleted immediately. (whenever I have come across such a member I have contacted admin with the evidence and he has acted swiftly to remove them)
2) Any FAKE member who is attempting to mislead other members should be deleted immediately.
(What is FAKE? - to me a male pretending to be a female is top of my list. Having had a conversation with admin and both of us independently using the term 'creepy' I tend to the view that anyone who is claiming to be 18 and has had an account for over 12 months is a FAKE. At some point they have entered the wrong age. That is misleading - a FAKE account.
(I do accept that his now becomes subjective and not objective. If they lied about being 25, 56 or 84 I would not be bothered but I do think there is something creepy about someone wanting to mislead people into thinking they are 18 when they cannot be. you are welcome to disagree.)
The problems always arise where the evidence offered in any report is not conclusive and the report is somewhat subjective. I have submitted reports that I was convinced were accurate and had them fail. Members should not take failure of one of their reports as a personal insult and start waging war on non agreeing members.
The panel is there to protect the site and its members. lets all work TOGETHER to do that .
In my voting decision, I also weighed in and considered that there were EARLY pictures posted of what appeared to me as a young male with "sparse body hair". Sparse does not mean shaved, sparse means scant, very little only a few, like a boy transitioning into his teenage years. Couple that with a picture of a stuffed animal on his bed and my eyes concured with the PROOF presented by the member himseld, that he, the member was a minor when he established his account.
How difficult is it to grasp that that was MY reasoning behind MY vote, that I do not have a group, gang or posse, that I do not spend time searching for fake profiles, that I was dubbed "defender of fakes" because I tend to be what might be perceived as soft and/or lenient when it comes to voting to delete membership for posting pictures found on the Internet (I think you and I agree that some members post Internet pictures and get away with it, while others filter through the evaluation process, some being deleted, some not).
If you still want to debate this matter publicly, so be it.
I've copied this from the site rules tab... Had to add some dots to keep it from starring words out...
"Anyone that accesses this site must be 18 years or older. There are no exceptions to this rule and the site maintains a zero tolerance policy for violations. Regardless of the law of consent in your country or state, this site requires you to be 18 years or older. By accessing the site, you agree to these terms and conditions. You also agree that by accessing the site you are of legal age to view the content of this site.
Discussing any type of und.erage pornography, requesting videos, pictures, or even making jokes about und.erage pornography will result in the deletion of your account.
Posting any type of media (still images, video, avatars, etc) must all be 18 years or older to uploaded to the site. Anyone attempting to post und.erage pornography shall have their IP address recorded and submitted to the authorities. Specifically, to the authorities in your country. It is your sole responsibility to be in compliance with the rules of the site, local, and international laws."
Zero tolerance, right? So why is this such an issue? And why is anyone bothering to defend such a thing? Do they not understand the risk of allowing such a member to continue being on here?
I would have defended any member that was referred for deletion for the reason, "looks young", if the age of their profile and the age that they state they are was consistent. THERE WAS NOTHING TO DEFEND, THE MEMBER SAID HE WAS 18 AND HAD BEEN HERE 3 YEARS, THE MEMBER BROKE THE SITE GUIDELINES AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, HE BROKE THE LAW.
But, as you said, in this case the evidence was there for anyone to see, and yes, he was in violation.
--------------------------------------- added after 8 minutes
And I really don't give a shit he was deleted. It was just a simple fact of was it fair. All I hear in the Review Panel is " Where is your proof". That guy is not the only one who is lying about his age, there are many more. Let's just delete them all.
The site updates your age automatically on the first of every year... He had been here 3 years, so either a) he was und.erage when he joined, or b) he lied about his age, which made it appear he was und.erage in his older photos. Either way, it's a risky situation.
And go on, report them all. I don't give much of a shit. If they're stupid enough to make it seem they were und.erage at any point, then they deserve to be deleted.
--------------------------------------- added after 105 minutes
Again, no comments from anyone.
Ask yourself this, are you really trying to "open eyes" or is this something that's personal and directed toward me?
Following RobinEdison's deletion, you reported 14 members for deletion because of their questionable age and those 14 members were swiftly deleted. You make reference to "bullshit u nderage shit/bullshit complaints" and "bullying", rather than throwing hollow words out there, back it up with FACTS. As for me, I did not vote on the first 14 because 1) it seemed to be a BULLSHIT COMPLAINT, like, "wah, wah, wah, no one listened to my point of view so I'm going fix them, I'm going to stay up all night, find as many profiles as possible and report them. They will listen to me now and I will prove my point. I'm gonna fix them!" 2) I was convinced that YOUR group had everything under control and again, those members were quickly deleted and you received a good deal of points for all your efforts.
Is it because I didn't vote that you referred the additional 15 on the following day?
And as for your last post, "no comments from anyone", who is "anyone" is the "anyone" you're referring to really just ME? I have a s ister who is really ill and elderly parents. FMLA does NOT cover time away from work for siblings and that the unpaid time that I spend away from my job is assisting my parents, my employer guesses otherwise. So really don't put so much thought into why I don't respond within a 2 hour time frame.
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
I will say it again. I don't care that he was deleted. I didn't blame one person. Since the start of this I have questioned the process in which was used. So there it is. Now we can clear this up and see where people stand on this. A simple YES or NO.
You gotta remember that reporting doesn't guarantee deletion...also it's a member vote...if people disagree with you,suck it up....and admin is clear...he got fed up with the panel reports and changed the guidelines....admin is not here to babysit us..
First of all, I reported a member a few hours ago because they sent me a private message and disclosed their age (16) in it. I have no problem with reporting anyone who does that even if they might actually be 18+ and saying they're younger is just part of whatever fantasy they might have and looking for some role playing where they want to be und3rage, regardless of whether or not they're a long standing member.
It wasn't the first time I'd reported someone for the same thing, thankfully only a few occasions over the years.
I have no issues with anyone's fantasies, but I do have issues with them if they choose to blindly throw them out at random to other people assuming we all approve of and want to be part of und3rage sex games.
In my view, THAT is not on and letting those people slip through the net without repraoch isn't right.
And I don't quite get why people might want to keep their age set at 18 on their profiles either. I suppose the internet gives us all a free reign to "be" whoever we want others to believe we are.
But that wouldn't make a good name either...
It reminds me of Volkswagen ad and their word, "fahrvergnügen".
Have you ever noticed the number of cars that have the "In Memory Of..." plastered in the rear window of their car?
New Comment Go to top