|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Last week, I started a thread asking."
Love you, too
I've had a few messages removed due to mentioning adult women getting messy in kids TV programmes, and whilst frustrating, I fully understand, especially after the hit job us by a disgraceful British tabloid about warmers voting for women to be gunged on a kids TV show.
Sadly, our scene is now becoming like The StockingsHQ TV and media sightings forum, which is pretty much empty, apart from a few speculative shots which are probably bare legs or tights.
Luckily we have some amazing producers here, because stumbling upon a great TV scene is very rare.
Sadly, our scene is now becoming like The StockingsHQ TV and media sightings forum, which is pretty much empty, apart from a few speculative shots which are probably bare legs or tights.
Luckily we have some amazing producers here, because stumbling upon a great TV scene is very rare.
Lapwingboy said: I've had a few messages removed due to mentioning adult women getting messy in kids TV programmes, and whilst frustrating, I fully understand, especially after the hit job us by a disgraceful British tabloid about warmers voting for women to be gunged on a kids TV show.
To be fair, it's fetishists trying to rig the votes on a kids TV show that's disgraceful. Leave the kids stuff for kids to enjoy and vote on for their own reasons, uncontaminated by adult desires. Adults should be consuming adult content, it's not as if there is any shortage of WAM material available, from strictly PG fully clothed all the way to hardcore XXX.
Lapwingboy said: Sadly, our scene is now becoming like The StockingsHQ TV and media sightings forum, which is pretty much empty, apart from a few speculative shots which are probably bare legs or tights.
Luckily we have some amazing producers here, because stumbling upon a great TV scene is very rare.
Luckily we have some amazing producers here, because stumbling upon a great TV scene is very rare.
Given we have professionally produced adult content catering to almost every taste imaginable (and customs for things that producers haven't imagined so far), I really don't get the continuing appeal of "mainstream" scenes. Anything from a TV show is almost inevitably going to be (from a wammer's POV) appalingly badly edited, missing major money shots, lacking in after-views, and just generally inferior in every way to anything that an actual WAM producer could create. I remember when I taped stuff off TV 30+ years ago. If you were lucky you'd get a couple of points in a scene where you could freeze-frame the VHS and have that one perfect shot. But it was literally that, a single frozen moment that worked. Now we have full-motion high-resolution video featuring people who know what they're doing and are happy to be gunged with full understanding that it's sexual. It's like comparing shiny printed paper to actual gold and diamonds.
And as this thread has now overflowed to a second page, want to reitterate what I posted yesterday:
DungeonMasterOne said: I just want to add, I think Kesley's response which you can read at the link below is one the the greatest posts on this overall subject I've ever read, anywhere. She totally nails the problem, and everyone should read what she has to say.
https://umd.net/forums/last-week-i-started-a-thread-asking#postid_902690
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
J Wam said:
Really dude? In what way is this an appropriate response to what this thread is about or to Caution's response?
Also I guess not allowing posts that encourage harassment somehow equals thought police or something?!
You and your moralizing censorship SJW nonsense is worse and needs to F*** off. This is not Facebook, or Twitter, or Youtube where they're censoring stuff like the CCP regime (aka China). I came here to jerk off in a politics and moral free zone. Your moralizing thought police post on what people can or cannot say is not welcomed here. I'm not interested in your echo chamber, and I would like to hear the other side regardless of how awful it is.
Really dude? In what way is this an appropriate response to what this thread is about or to Caution's response?
Also I guess not allowing posts that encourage harassment somehow equals thought police or something?!
Go read my post again, it is directed at what Caution wanted which is censorship and promoting his ideology/morality.
If you don't like a post, move on.
If you don't like a post and want to control other people based on your own ideology/morality, I have a problem with you. And that's even if I agree with you.
If you don't like a post and express why you don't like it, I don't have a problem. And that's even if I disagree with you.
Hope that covers most of the scenario...
Update: And if anyone is still in any doubt that contacting **anyone** from a WAM video in real life is a bad idea, they might want to read this: https://umd.net/forums/help-identifying-source-of-photos#postid_903095
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
DungeonMasterOne said: Update: And if anyone is still in any doubt that contacting **anyone** from a WAM video in real life is a bad idea, they might want to read this: https://umd.net/forums/help-identifying-source-of-photos#postid_903095
I have to agree it's never a good idea. I'm certain it will become less common in time, but will it be because our community as one improves its behaviour, or will it be because we drive more and more models away, until there are very few left?
lchris001 said:
As much as I disagree with contacting them (non-fetish people) for fetishistic purpose, and yes it is a bad idea....
You and your moralizing censorship SJW nonsense is worse and needs to F*** off. This is not Facebook, or Twitter, or Youtube where they're censoring stuff like the CCP regime (aka China). I came here to jerk off in a politics and moral free zone. Your moralizing thought police post on what people can or cannot say is not welcomed here. I'm not interested in your echo chamber, and I would like to hear the other side regardless of how awful it is.
Caution said:
I respectfully disagree, only in this manner: I don't think any of the positions advocating (or playing "devils advocate") for this type of behavior deserve any credence on this site. I would definitely be in favor of certain stickied topics explicitly stating the position of the site on this matter. I would absolutely be in favor of the preservation of numerous comments on this post, because they are well stated and eloquent, especially those of DungeonMasterOne and Kelsey, but I strongly feel there's no reason to preserve in any capacity the advocacy for harrassment.
dalamar666 said: I hope this thread is left up for reference purposes. I know that we don't normally do a sticky thread kind of thing. What about making a section with commonly discussed themes and moving the threads there. Things like what happened to model X, respectful communication, discussions about the credit card fiasco, why are ID's required etc. Make the posts so they can no longer be replied to and toss them all in the same section of the forum.
I respectfully disagree, only in this manner: I don't think any of the positions advocating (or playing "devils advocate") for this type of behavior deserve any credence on this site. I would definitely be in favor of certain stickied topics explicitly stating the position of the site on this matter. I would absolutely be in favor of the preservation of numerous comments on this post, because they are well stated and eloquent, especially those of DungeonMasterOne and Kelsey, but I strongly feel there's no reason to preserve in any capacity the advocacy for harrassment.
As much as I disagree with contacting them (non-fetish people) for fetishistic purpose, and yes it is a bad idea....
You and your moralizing censorship SJW nonsense is worse and needs to F*** off. This is not Facebook, or Twitter, or Youtube where they're censoring stuff like the CCP regime (aka China). I came here to jerk off in a politics and moral free zone. Your moralizing thought police post on what people can or cannot say is not welcomed here. I'm not interested in your echo chamber, and I would like to hear the other side regardless of how awful it is.
Sir, please calm down, this is not how you get people to respect you. There are so many other people who expressed the same sentiment as Caution did, and Caution was very respectful and thoughtful in his response to this. Why you feel the need to attack him specifically is really just confusing. I agree with his take on it, you want to tell me to fuck off and that my opinion isn't welcomed here too? You don't speak for me or have the authority to tell anyone what is or isn't welcomed here in this community, so step down from that high horse of yours, all we can see is a horse's ass from that perspective.
lchris001 said:
Go read my post again, it is directed at what Caution wanted which is censorship and promoting his ideology/morality.
If you don't like a post, move on.
If you don't like a post and want to control other people based on your own ideology/morality, I have a problem with you. And that's even if I agree with you.
If you don't like a post and express why you don't like it, I don't have a problem. And that's even if I disagree with you.
Hope that covers most of the scenario...
J Wam said:
Really dude? In what way is this an appropriate response to what this thread is about or to Caution's response?
Also I guess not allowing posts that encourage harassment somehow equals thought police or something?!
You and your moralizing censorship SJW nonsense is worse and needs to F*** off. This is not Facebook, or Twitter, or Youtube where they're censoring stuff like the CCP regime (aka China). I came here to jerk off in a politics and moral free zone. Your moralizing thought police post on what people can or cannot say is not welcomed here. I'm not interested in your echo chamber, and I would like to hear the other side regardless of how awful it is.
Really dude? In what way is this an appropriate response to what this thread is about or to Caution's response?
Also I guess not allowing posts that encourage harassment somehow equals thought police or something?!
Go read my post again, it is directed at what Caution wanted which is censorship and promoting his ideology/morality.
If you don't like a post, move on.
If you don't like a post and want to control other people based on your own ideology/morality, I have a problem with you. And that's even if I agree with you.
If you don't like a post and express why you don't like it, I don't have a problem. And that's even if I disagree with you.
Hope that covers most of the scenario...
You're just being self-righteous and opinionated now. You're not an authority here, none of us are here for the same reason you are or have the same needs you do, so stop acting like you know better. You're over reacting and being dramatic, chill out, yo.
CreamMeAgain said:
Sir, please calm down, this is not how you get people to respect you. There are so many other people who expressed the same sentiment as Caution did, and Caution was very respectful and thoughtful in his response to this. Why you feel the need to attack him specifically is really just confusing. I agree with his take on it, you want to tell me to fuck off and that my opinion isn't welcomed here too? You don't speak for me or have the authority to tell anyone what is or isn't welcomed here in this community, so step down from that high horse of yours, all we can see is a horse's ass from that perspective.
lchris001 said:
As much as I disagree with contacting them (non-fetish people) for fetishistic purpose, and yes it is a bad idea....
You and your moralizing censorship SJW nonsense is worse and needs to F*** off. This is not Facebook, or Twitter, or Youtube where they're censoring stuff like the CCP regime (aka China). I came here to jerk off in a politics and moral free zone. Your moralizing thought police post on what people can or cannot say is not welcomed here. I'm not interested in your echo chamber, and I would like to hear the other side regardless of how awful it is.
Caution said:
I respectfully disagree, only in this manner: I don't think any of the positions advocating (or playing "devils advocate") for this type of behavior deserve any credence on this site. I would definitely be in favor of certain stickied topics explicitly stating the position of the site on this matter. I would absolutely be in favor of the preservation of numerous comments on this post, because they are well stated and eloquent, especially those of DungeonMasterOne and Kelsey, but I strongly feel there's no reason to preserve in any capacity the advocacy for harrassment.
dalamar666 said: I hope this thread is left up for reference purposes. I know that we don't normally do a sticky thread kind of thing. What about making a section with commonly discussed themes and moving the threads there. Things like what happened to model X, respectful communication, discussions about the credit card fiasco, why are ID's required etc. Make the posts so they can no longer be replied to and toss them all in the same section of the forum.
I respectfully disagree, only in this manner: I don't think any of the positions advocating (or playing "devils advocate") for this type of behavior deserve any credence on this site. I would definitely be in favor of certain stickied topics explicitly stating the position of the site on this matter. I would absolutely be in favor of the preservation of numerous comments on this post, because they are well stated and eloquent, especially those of DungeonMasterOne and Kelsey, but I strongly feel there's no reason to preserve in any capacity the advocacy for harrassment.
As much as I disagree with contacting them (non-fetish people) for fetishistic purpose, and yes it is a bad idea....
You and your moralizing censorship SJW nonsense is worse and needs to F*** off. This is not Facebook, or Twitter, or Youtube where they're censoring stuff like the CCP regime (aka China). I came here to jerk off in a politics and moral free zone. Your moralizing thought police post on what people can or cannot say is not welcomed here. I'm not interested in your echo chamber, and I would like to hear the other side regardless of how awful it is.
Sir, please calm down, this is not how you get people to respect you. There are so many other people who expressed the same sentiment as Caution did, and Caution was very respectful and thoughtful in his response to this. Why you feel the need to attack him specifically is really just confusing. I agree with his take on it, you want to tell me to fuck off and that my opinion isn't welcomed here too? You don't speak for me or have the authority to tell anyone what is or isn't welcomed here in this community, so step down from that high horse of yours, all we can see is a horse's ass from that perspective.
No, he did not. Caution specifically said to remove the "offending posts" while keeping the rest up. Nobody else in the thread so far has mentioned that. All I see was numerous post was "this is a bad idea" and explaining why. And I never responded to any other thread, because I don't have a problem with what was being said.
So tell me what gives Caution the right to unilaterally censor (or in this case propose to censor) posts he disagrees with? If you want to support Caution's 1984 totalitarianism thought police, or if you think you should play the role of the arbiter of truth, then you can be sure you won't be welcomed by some of us. What next? We're going to censor more topics because it hurts someone else's feelings? Or maybe impose some WAM narrative and ban discussions that goes against the narrative?
And yes I'm getting pissed off with all these political/ideological posts lately. I already deal with this nonsense in my day-to-day everyday, I don't need it in my entertainment as well.
So tell me what gives Caution the right to unilaterally censor (or in this case propose to censor) posts he disagrees with?
Caution is neither a site moderator or owner. He can't "unilaterally censor" anything. The only thing that would give him the right and authority to remove posts is for the user to be assigned as a moderator. At the moment, afaik, he's not a moderator, and so absolutely nothing gives him the right to remove any posts.
If you want to support Caution's 1984 totalitarianism thought police, or if you think you should play the role of the arbiter of truth, then you can be sure you won't be welcomed by some of us. What next? We're going to censor more topics because it hurts someone else's feelings? Or maybe impose some WAM narrative and ban discussions that goes against the narrative?
This is a straw-man argument and way off of the mark of this topic. The owners/moderators have explicitly said what is and isn't acceptable on their privately owned and operated website. "This is a horrifically bad idea on every possible level." [sic], etc.
This has absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing,, about hurting someone's feelings. You've landed square into the middle of hyperbole.
By "Truth", lets define that: The truth is that the owners/moderators of this website have made rules about acceptable behavior, postings, etc. for various reasons (legal, safety, community standards, etc).
And yes I'm getting pissed off with all these political/ideological posts lately. I already deal with this nonsense in my day-to-day everyday, I don't need it in my entertainment as well.
There was nothing political about the post. Whatever you inferred, that's on you.
There was nothing ideological about the post. Whatever you inferred, that's on you.
Other than content-creators here, we're not here for your entertainment. So, expect to be disappointed if that is what you're looking for in the discussion forums (outside of posts advertising content).
Everyone has a right to say what they want in the forums.
No one has a right to say what they want and remain un-moderated.
Finally, of course you have the right to disagree, to become angry, to flame other posters, and so on.
And of course, do do not have a right to remain free from the consequences of it (if any, per moderators/owners).
--
Our community has a challenge (and sometimes a big problem) with consent. It's understandable, since the mainstream slapstick that is a major prt of how we got into this kink is all about the comedy set-ups of non-consensual situations (people unexpectedly get pied, caked, slimed, etc). But a lot of things are understandable and also not excusable. Both things can be, and are, true. Non-consensual sexual activity is not excusable.
So if the moderators, admins, etc here redact from or remove entire posts that violate the standards with which they operate the website, that's excellent. It's not "thought police", or "political", or "ideological". It's a set of standards being applied. If anyone doesn't like it, that's also perfectly fine: everyone is free to go elsewhere and live their fullest life.
PieWriter said:
Everyone has a right to say what they want in the forums.
No one has a right to say what they want and remain un-moderated.
Finally, of course you have the right to disagree, to become angry, to flame other posters, and so on.
And of course, do do not have a right to remain free from the consequences of it (if any, per moderators/owners).
Everyone has a right to say what they want in the forums.
No one has a right to say what they want and remain un-moderated.
Finally, of course you have the right to disagree, to become angry, to flame other posters, and so on.
And of course, do do not have a right to remain free from the consequences of it (if any, per moderators/owners).
Yes, I've heard that before. We are all equal but some a more equal than others. I would not get too trigger happy with the moderation, there's ongoing lawsuits against social media and other platforms for that. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
PieWriter said:
So if the moderators, admins, etc here redact from or remove entire posts that violate the standards with which they operate the website, that's excellent. It's not "thought police", or "political", or "ideological". It's a set of standards being applied. If anyone doesn't like it, that's also perfectly fine: everyone is free to go elsewhere and live their fullest life.
So if the moderators, admins, etc here redact from or remove entire posts that violate the standards with which they operate the website, that's excellent. It's not "thought police", or "political", or "ideological". It's a set of standards being applied. If anyone doesn't like it, that's also perfectly fine: everyone is free to go elsewhere and live their fullest life.
It's funny that you mentioned standards, because if anything those standards have become more restrictive over time when increasingly more requirements. We've had issues with similar things in the distant past like Running Rebel, AntXD(?), etc. My memory could be wrong since it has been a while, but back then we would shit talk about how bad it was, but I don't recall any talk on censorship. Definitely less morality and preaching too, we'd focus on the impact like "hey what you're doing sucks because we all suffer" vs post like "hey what you're doing sucks because of my morals".
Yes, I've heard that before. We are all equal but some a more equal than others. I would not get too trigger happy with the moderation, there's ongoing lawsuits against social media and other platforms for that. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
Animal Farm, right.
That's also another straw-man argument. Sorry, but this makes 0 (zero) sense. Ongoing lawsuits elsewhere have nothing to do with this thread. Complaints about moderation has nothing to do with this thread (and if you do have issues with the mods here, I suggest that you message them privately about it).
And, you used the C[ensor] word. Don't put that one anyone else. Cute trick, but not buying it.
On point: this site has standards, made clear in this thread and in other places, set by admins, mods, owners. Everyone is moderated the same ( I'll add: to the best of the team's ability).
Off-topic: TBH this is getting into "grievance politics", victim performance virtue-signaling. We have a whole media and business built around it in the U.S., and some of your comments sound straight from those (million-dollar-money-making) podcasts, YT videos, TV news programs.
(And that all from me! Stay tuned for more programming. I've made my points, and am not interested in continued straw-man takedowns and off-topic ranting and trolling. If that's what it is, of course, but that is my impression! Not playing grievance whack-a-mole or victim-virtue-signaling. If I want that, I'll watch a certain TV news channel about Jewish Space Lasers or whatnot.)
PieWriter said:
Yes, I've heard that before. We are all equal but some a more equal than others. I would not get too trigger happy with the moderation, there's ongoing lawsuits against social media and other platforms for that. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
Animal Farm, right.
That's also another straw-man argument. Sorry, but this makes 0 (zero) sense. Ongoing lawsuits elsewhere have nothing to do with this thread. Complaints about moderation has nothing to do with this thread (and if you do have issues with the mods here, I suggest that you message them privately about it).
And, you used the C[ensor] word. Don't put that one anyone else. Cute trick, but not buying it.
On point: this site has standards, made clear in this thread and in other places, set by admins, mods, owners. Everyone is moderated the same ( I'll add: to the best of the team's ability).
Off-topic:
TBH this is getting into "grievance politics", victim performance virtue-signaling. We have a whole media and business built around it in the U.S., and some of your comments sound straight from those (million-dollar-money-making) podcasts, YT videos, TV news programs.
(And that all from me! Stay tuned for more programming. I've made my points, and am not interested in continued straw-man takedowns and off-topic ranting and trolling. If that's what it is, of course, but that is my impression! Not playing grievance whack-a-mole or victim-virtue-signaling. If I want that, I'll watch a certain TV news channel about Jewish Space Lasers or whatnot.)
Yes, I've heard that before. We are all equal but some a more equal than others. I would not get too trigger happy with the moderation, there's ongoing lawsuits against social media and other platforms for that. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
Animal Farm, right.
That's also another straw-man argument. Sorry, but this makes 0 (zero) sense. Ongoing lawsuits elsewhere have nothing to do with this thread. Complaints about moderation has nothing to do with this thread (and if you do have issues with the mods here, I suggest that you message them privately about it).
And, you used the C[ensor] word. Don't put that one anyone else. Cute trick, but not buying it.
On point: this site has standards, made clear in this thread and in other places, set by admins, mods, owners. Everyone is moderated the same ( I'll add: to the best of the team's ability).
Off-topic: TBH this is getting into "grievance politics", victim performance virtue-signaling. We have a whole media and business built around it in the U.S., and some of your comments sound straight from those (million-dollar-money-making) podcasts, YT videos, TV news programs.
(And that all from me! Stay tuned for more programming. I've made my points, and am not interested in continued straw-man takedowns and off-topic ranting and trolling. If that's what it is, of course, but that is my impression! Not playing grievance whack-a-mole or victim-virtue-signaling. If I want that, I'll watch a certain TV news channel about Jewish Space Lasers or whatnot.)
Of course, use a different word or just change the definition of the word because that's the only way you can win an argument. I've seen that trick every day for the last few years. It's not a door right? It's just a human-sized rectangle made with wood with an hollow center for people to walk through... it's not the same, totally different!
And if you want to bring in virtue-signaling, that's on you. I see lots of virtue-signaling, but it's not coming from me. I probably have the least "virtuous" opinion here, I'm stating that we should allow awful ideas to be discussed fully here... like do you even know what virtue signaling means?
I'm sorry I took up so much of your time. You need to go back to imperializing your moral superiority on how the rest of the country should lead our lives and what we are not allowed to say, as you see fit.
]quote]
I respectfully disagree, only in this manner: I don't think any of the positions advocating (or playing "devils advocate") for this type of behavior deserve any credence on this site. I would definitely be in favor of certain stickied topics explicitly stating the position of the site on this matter. I would absolutely be in favor of the preservation of numerous comments on this post, because they are well stated and eloquent, especially those of DungeonMasterOne and Kelsey, but I strongly feel there's no reason to preserve in any capacity the advocacy for harrassment.
I respectfully disagree, only in this manner: I don't think any of the positions advocating (or playing "devils advocate") for this type of behavior deserve any credence on this site. I would definitely be in favor of certain stickied topics explicitly stating the position of the site on this matter. I would absolutely be in favor of the preservation of numerous comments on this post, because they are well stated and eloquent, especially those of DungeonMasterOne and Kelsey, but I strongly feel there's no reason to preserve in any capacity the advocacy for harrassment.
I once heard orread this (and it may have been on this website somewhere) as a great rule-of-thumb during conversations and polite debates:
"The Devil does not need an advocate. And if he did, he'd hire a professional and not you."
It went farther: if we (me, you, whoever) choose to debate from a position we don't really believe, but it is "devils advocate", then it is also sophistry. As a technique in teaching, somewhere around the socratic method, then that "devils advocacy" (really just taking the opposite position in order to foster education of one's students) makes sense. Otherwise, it's a bit like a crazy Auntie provoking the kids at the holiday dinner table.
(Not that I would know about being the crazy Auntie *cough cough*...
)Ok, for the sake of clarity and information, here's some detail on how the site is moderated:
First, the moderator guidelines are in the Terms of Service, where anyone can read them (link in the blue bit at the bottom of the page, "Terms & Privacy"). There aren't any other hidden extras or secret rules. We do all get to see MM's replies to all the reports that get flagged, which add detail and depth to how he wants things done, which are private, but none of those contradict the main "rules".
In terms of moderators taking actions, in general we only act ourselves on very blatant and obvious things. Threads with the wrong gender tagging, links to or requests for pirate content, links to, images from, or excessive detail of, kids shows, content that breaches the Terms of Service like pee or poop, or threads in the wrong forums, like messy content posted to the wetlook forum of vice versa.
Anything more subtle than that, MM's standing instructions are that rather than tackling it ourselves we should flag it to him (or leave it flagged if it already is) and let him take the decisions. He has also said on multiple occasioons in response to flags on content like the OP in this thread, that rather than just nuking everything from orbit he sometimes prefers if the community sets someone straight. Explaining is sometimes better than silencing.
When I first saw this thread my instinct was to nuke it, and I actually got as far as switching to Admin mode (which brings up a bunch of extra controls including the ability to move and delete threads, edit posts, change tagging, and more) and was starting to fill in the Admin Comment box prior to nuking it, when I realised that this probably was one of the ones better explained than just killed. So I cancelled out of delete, and instead edited the post to remove the celebrity and show names, and posted my reply explaining why contacting those people would be a terrible idea. Many others added comments, and a reasonably healthy debate ensued, without which we wouldn't have got Kesley's absolutely superb post on the subject, which really did nail things.
As to how the site has changed over the years, our community has definitely evolved. I remember back in the days of Usenet in the mid-90s, the text-based WAM debating spaces that existed then were full of "how do I hide my collection of jpegs from my wife", and even sometimes "what's the best way to trick women into getting messy". I still remember seeing advice about creating a zip disk labelled "MSDOS Utilities" and putting your folder of WAM images several layers deep on that. Shades of the old "you can hide anything if you just bury it under seven layers of horse porn."
WAM culture has definitely evolved, the idea that you hide your fetish from the person you promised to love above all others is now definitely frowned on. There's still a huge difference between how men and women get treated but it's nothing like as bad as it once was, and to some extent that won't really be fixed until general society becomes less misogynistic, and that's a multi-generation project. On the good side, being into fetishes in general is now much more socially acceptable than it once was, just in the last 20 years.
First, the moderator guidelines are in the Terms of Service, where anyone can read them (link in the blue bit at the bottom of the page, "Terms & Privacy"). There aren't any other hidden extras or secret rules. We do all get to see MM's replies to all the reports that get flagged, which add detail and depth to how he wants things done, which are private, but none of those contradict the main "rules".
In terms of moderators taking actions, in general we only act ourselves on very blatant and obvious things. Threads with the wrong gender tagging, links to or requests for pirate content, links to, images from, or excessive detail of, kids shows, content that breaches the Terms of Service like pee or poop, or threads in the wrong forums, like messy content posted to the wetlook forum of vice versa.
Anything more subtle than that, MM's standing instructions are that rather than tackling it ourselves we should flag it to him (or leave it flagged if it already is) and let him take the decisions. He has also said on multiple occasioons in response to flags on content like the OP in this thread, that rather than just nuking everything from orbit he sometimes prefers if the community sets someone straight. Explaining is sometimes better than silencing.
When I first saw this thread my instinct was to nuke it, and I actually got as far as switching to Admin mode (which brings up a bunch of extra controls including the ability to move and delete threads, edit posts, change tagging, and more) and was starting to fill in the Admin Comment box prior to nuking it, when I realised that this probably was one of the ones better explained than just killed. So I cancelled out of delete, and instead edited the post to remove the celebrity and show names, and posted my reply explaining why contacting those people would be a terrible idea. Many others added comments, and a reasonably healthy debate ensued, without which we wouldn't have got Kesley's absolutely superb post on the subject, which really did nail things.
As to how the site has changed over the years, our community has definitely evolved. I remember back in the days of Usenet in the mid-90s, the text-based WAM debating spaces that existed then were full of "how do I hide my collection of jpegs from my wife", and even sometimes "what's the best way to trick women into getting messy". I still remember seeing advice about creating a zip disk labelled "MSDOS Utilities" and putting your folder of WAM images several layers deep on that. Shades of the old "you can hide anything if you just bury it under seven layers of horse porn."
WAM culture has definitely evolved, the idea that you hide your fetish from the person you promised to love above all others is now definitely frowned on. There's still a huge difference between how men and women get treated but it's nothing like as bad as it once was, and to some extent that won't really be fixed until general society becomes less misogynistic, and that's a multi-generation project. On the good side, being into fetishes in general is now much more socially acceptable than it once was, just in the last 20 years.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
lchris001 said:
I would not get too trigger happy with the moderation, there's ongoing lawsuits against social media and other platforms for that. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
I would not get too trigger happy with the moderation, there's ongoing lawsuits against social media and other platforms for that. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
Ah jeez, this is how we ended up with Trump... No, Elon Musk isn't buying UMD and creating a platform where people can stalk women who were child actresses in what is now your fetish. Outside of lunatic judges in Texas, no court is ever going to say companies can't control the content on their own damn site. How do people in this age still not understand that?
Zarum said:
Ah jeez, this is how we ended up with Trump... No, Elon Musk isn't buying UMD and creating a platform where people can stalk women who were child actresses in what is now your fetish. Outside of lunatic judges in Texas, no court is ever going to say companies can't control the content on their own damn site. How do people in this age still not understand that?
PieWriter said:
I would not get too trigger happy with the moderation, there's ongoing lawsuits against social media and other platforms for that. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
I would not get too trigger happy with the moderation, there's ongoing lawsuits against social media and other platforms for that. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
Ah jeez, this is how we ended up with Trump... No, Elon Musk isn't buying UMD and creating a platform where people can stalk women who were child actresses in what is now your fetish. Outside of lunatic judges in Texas, no court is ever going to say companies can't control the content on their own damn site. How do people in this age still not understand that?
(For clarity, I was quoting a prior post. Not it!)
lchris001 said: I am not happy in my normal life.
Chris, you are obviously so unhappy with your life that you bring that here. I hope that you find things that make you happy and find a way to be here without seeing things that are not there. Maybe for the time being these forums are not the best place for you.
Chris, I'm going to clarify my sentiment and position, because you're trying desperately to put words in my mouth. You have severely misinterpreted my position.
I sense a lot of projection from you. You seem to have a twisted worldview, jumping to the conclusion that I have an ulterior political motive. That is far from the truth. Sadly disappointing, yet unsurprising given the divicine nature of online discourse these days.
I assure you my statement was not politically driven - far from it. I don't see why you perceived it as such. I made no mention of politics, and I assure you I am not some "virtue signaling social justice warrior," as you have accused me of being over and over.
I'm simply a person who has experienced the harmful effects that occur when online harassment spills into the real world. It's not fun. I'm a regular guy who works hard, pays taxes and takes care of my family.
If you haven't had to deal with the frustration and pain that comes with harassment, consider yourself fortunate.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that you did about my intent. My words were clear and I stand by them - It's not acceptable to harass people, and it's not ok to advocate for it here. I also think it's pretty unfortunate that you immediately resorted to insulting and disrespecting me over and over in your posts. Numerous others have voice their similar opinions, but you continue to single me out.
Let's be clear: My only interest in "moralizing censorship," is the communal interest in keeping this site online and safe from those who would risk the entire community from the consequences that will occur if we continue to align ourselves with those who seek to drag unsuspecting people into our fetish. I don't think it's acceptable to promote that behavior here.
I certainly haven't suggested any "unilateral censorship." My primary issue is that if we as a community endorse the reprehensible behavior of contacting unsuspecting people for fetish work, it will lead to the degradation of the community itself.
Your statements accusing me of being a "totalitarian thought police," a "Chinese communist," or the "arbiter of truth," are wildly inaccurate. You've inferred what you choose to believe from my post, but it's far from the reality of the situation.
Perhaps that's on me, because maybe I've not been clear enough about my feelings. I thought I was but you continue to double down about what you feel is my "1984'ish ideological" suggestion that this type of behavior is damaging to the community.
I assure you, I support the first amendment and it's implications that speech is protected. Where that protection ends is critical though. It ends when it infringes on the safety of other people. It's not OK to lean on the right to free speech as a means to harass others.
As Piewriter mentioned, I'm no moderator (and have no desire to be one), so the decision about whether or not to preserve this thread is completely out of my hands. I offered my opinion about what I thought would be beneficial to the community, respectfully. (I literally said I "respectfully disagree...) You then chose to use inflammatory language against me time and time again; a most disrespectful display that has been rightfully called out by other members of this forum.
Now, you've gone on numerous tirades about how this forum is en route to become some sort of SJW echo chamber, going so far as to call my stance "totalitarian authoritarianism." I think you really are reaching with those statements. How you came to that conclusion is on you and how you interpreted my opinions. No one else seems to have inferred such a conclusion. How did you come to that determination? It brings me back to the concept of projection. I think perhaps you seek conflict and confrontation and saw this as an opportunity to engage. Not everything is a personal attack against you and your politics. You should reflect on that.
Looking at your post history, you've shared this sentiment, uninvited, in the past before. You've also asked the forum about which social media sites are good for finding fetish content. Perhaps this subject hit a little too close to home?
I encourage you to re-read Kelsey's prior post explaining in detail why that type of behavior is problematic. She said it far better than I could.
You mentioned that social media sites are at risk of being brought to court over censorship issues, and perhaps the UMD will be subject to the same level of scrutiny and legal troubles. Comparing the UMD to sites like FB and Twitter is a huge stretch, let's be honest. But furthermore, which scenario do you think is more likely:?
1. The UMD faces civil suits because they remove content that advocates contacting unknowing innocent people who have nothing to do with this site. The members of this site form up some sort of coalition to sue the admin for moderating this site in line with the laws of the USA?
Or:
2. The UMD faces real civil liability and repercussions because we allowed this site to be the jumping board for people to locate and contact unwilling participants into our particular subculture of fetish content?
It's obvious that scenario #2 is far more likely. I'm trying to be realistic about maintaining an adult community that abides by the laws of this nation. In no way am I suggesting that we turn away from being an inclusive and open-minded forum for people to share ideas and content, respectfully. Messmaster has always done a great job of encouraging open dialogue, and I support that philosophy whole-heartedly.
I've made my arguments in good faith, respectfully. You, however, have not. You've attacked my opinions and used inflammatory language against me, and compared me to a communist. You yourself said that you want to have a productive dialogue on the matter, yet you have been by far the most derisive and abusive voice in this entire subject, singularly focused on insulting my perspective... all the while claiming to have the same opinion on the subject as me. What is your endgame? To decry this site? To try and diminish me and others? To complain about politics in general, when that had nothing to do with any of this? I reiterate, I think some self reflection would be beneficial here. I promise you, I'm trying to be open-minded to your perspective.
Since we both agree that:
1. Contacting kids' show actors/actresses is a bad idea.
and
2. Free speech and open dialogue is a good thing as long as it doesn't promote harm.
Then I don't see why you're behaving so confrontationally.
I'm not virtue signaling. If you perceive it to be so, then you are reaching and projecting. No one was out here to "get you," until you started behaving so disrespectfully.
An open dialogue about why the preservation of this thread is worthwhile would be an argument I'd be happy to engage in, but you immediately resorted to insulting me, which only makes this particular thread less likely to preserved in the long run. Frankly, I'm disappointed that the admins have allowed you to continue to drag my name through the mud, when I've been nothing but professional in my communication, while you've been behaving impudently and immaturely.
If you're attending the UMD 25th anniversary, I invite you to continue this discussion face to face. I'm happy to express my opinions in person.
Until then, I sincerely request that you keep my G%& D%#! name out your F@#!ing mouth.
I sense a lot of projection from you. You seem to have a twisted worldview, jumping to the conclusion that I have an ulterior political motive. That is far from the truth. Sadly disappointing, yet unsurprising given the divicine nature of online discourse these days.
I assure you my statement was not politically driven - far from it. I don't see why you perceived it as such. I made no mention of politics, and I assure you I am not some "virtue signaling social justice warrior," as you have accused me of being over and over.
I'm simply a person who has experienced the harmful effects that occur when online harassment spills into the real world. It's not fun. I'm a regular guy who works hard, pays taxes and takes care of my family.
If you haven't had to deal with the frustration and pain that comes with harassment, consider yourself fortunate.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that you did about my intent. My words were clear and I stand by them - It's not acceptable to harass people, and it's not ok to advocate for it here. I also think it's pretty unfortunate that you immediately resorted to insulting and disrespecting me over and over in your posts. Numerous others have voice their similar opinions, but you continue to single me out.
Let's be clear: My only interest in "moralizing censorship," is the communal interest in keeping this site online and safe from those who would risk the entire community from the consequences that will occur if we continue to align ourselves with those who seek to drag unsuspecting people into our fetish. I don't think it's acceptable to promote that behavior here.
I certainly haven't suggested any "unilateral censorship." My primary issue is that if we as a community endorse the reprehensible behavior of contacting unsuspecting people for fetish work, it will lead to the degradation of the community itself.
Your statements accusing me of being a "totalitarian thought police," a "Chinese communist," or the "arbiter of truth," are wildly inaccurate. You've inferred what you choose to believe from my post, but it's far from the reality of the situation.
Perhaps that's on me, because maybe I've not been clear enough about my feelings. I thought I was but you continue to double down about what you feel is my "1984'ish ideological" suggestion that this type of behavior is damaging to the community.
I assure you, I support the first amendment and it's implications that speech is protected. Where that protection ends is critical though. It ends when it infringes on the safety of other people. It's not OK to lean on the right to free speech as a means to harass others.
As Piewriter mentioned, I'm no moderator (and have no desire to be one), so the decision about whether or not to preserve this thread is completely out of my hands. I offered my opinion about what I thought would be beneficial to the community, respectfully. (I literally said I "respectfully disagree...) You then chose to use inflammatory language against me time and time again; a most disrespectful display that has been rightfully called out by other members of this forum.
Now, you've gone on numerous tirades about how this forum is en route to become some sort of SJW echo chamber, going so far as to call my stance "totalitarian authoritarianism." I think you really are reaching with those statements. How you came to that conclusion is on you and how you interpreted my opinions. No one else seems to have inferred such a conclusion. How did you come to that determination? It brings me back to the concept of projection. I think perhaps you seek conflict and confrontation and saw this as an opportunity to engage. Not everything is a personal attack against you and your politics. You should reflect on that.
Looking at your post history, you've shared this sentiment, uninvited, in the past before. You've also asked the forum about which social media sites are good for finding fetish content. Perhaps this subject hit a little too close to home?
I encourage you to re-read Kelsey's prior post explaining in detail why that type of behavior is problematic. She said it far better than I could.
You mentioned that social media sites are at risk of being brought to court over censorship issues, and perhaps the UMD will be subject to the same level of scrutiny and legal troubles. Comparing the UMD to sites like FB and Twitter is a huge stretch, let's be honest. But furthermore, which scenario do you think is more likely:?
1. The UMD faces civil suits because they remove content that advocates contacting unknowing innocent people who have nothing to do with this site. The members of this site form up some sort of coalition to sue the admin for moderating this site in line with the laws of the USA?
Or:
2. The UMD faces real civil liability and repercussions because we allowed this site to be the jumping board for people to locate and contact unwilling participants into our particular subculture of fetish content?
It's obvious that scenario #2 is far more likely. I'm trying to be realistic about maintaining an adult community that abides by the laws of this nation. In no way am I suggesting that we turn away from being an inclusive and open-minded forum for people to share ideas and content, respectfully. Messmaster has always done a great job of encouraging open dialogue, and I support that philosophy whole-heartedly.
I've made my arguments in good faith, respectfully. You, however, have not. You've attacked my opinions and used inflammatory language against me, and compared me to a communist. You yourself said that you want to have a productive dialogue on the matter, yet you have been by far the most derisive and abusive voice in this entire subject, singularly focused on insulting my perspective... all the while claiming to have the same opinion on the subject as me. What is your endgame? To decry this site? To try and diminish me and others? To complain about politics in general, when that had nothing to do with any of this? I reiterate, I think some self reflection would be beneficial here. I promise you, I'm trying to be open-minded to your perspective.
Since we both agree that:
1. Contacting kids' show actors/actresses is a bad idea.
and
2. Free speech and open dialogue is a good thing as long as it doesn't promote harm.
Then I don't see why you're behaving so confrontationally.
I'm not virtue signaling. If you perceive it to be so, then you are reaching and projecting. No one was out here to "get you," until you started behaving so disrespectfully.
An open dialogue about why the preservation of this thread is worthwhile would be an argument I'd be happy to engage in, but you immediately resorted to insulting me, which only makes this particular thread less likely to preserved in the long run. Frankly, I'm disappointed that the admins have allowed you to continue to drag my name through the mud, when I've been nothing but professional in my communication, while you've been behaving impudently and immaturely.
If you're attending the UMD 25th anniversary, I invite you to continue this discussion face to face. I'm happy to express my opinions in person.
Until then, I sincerely request that you keep my G%& D%#! name out your F@#!ing mouth.
Caution said: Chris, I'm going to clarify my sentiment and position, because you're trying desperately to put words in my mouth. You have severely misinterpreted my position.
I sense a lot of projection from you. You seem to have a twisted worldview, jumping to the conclusion that I have an ulterior political motive. That is far from the truth. Sadly disappointing, yet unsurprising given the divicine nature of online discourse these days.
I assure you my statement was not politically driven - far from it. I don't see why you perceived it as such. I made no mention of politics, and I assure you I am not some "virtue signaling social justice warrior," as you have accused me of being over and over.
I'm simply a person who has experienced the harmful effects that occur when online harassment spills into the real world. It's not fun. I'm a regular guy who works hard, pays taxes and takes care of my family.
If you haven't had to deal with the frustration and pain that comes with harassment, consider yourself fortunate.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that you did about my intent. My words were clear and I stand by them - It's not acceptable to harass people, and it's not ok to advocate for it here. I also think it's pretty unfortunate that you immediately resorted to insulting and disrespecting me over and over in your posts. Numerous others have voice their similar opinions, but you continue to single me out.
Let's be clear: My only interest in "moralizing censorship," is the communal interest in keeping this site online and safe from those who would risk the entire community from the consequences that will occur if we continue to align ourselves with those who seek to drag unsuspecting people into our fetish. I don't think it's acceptable to promote that behavior here.
I certainly haven't suggested any "unilateral censorship." My primary issue is that if we as a community endorse the reprehensible behavior of contacting unsuspecting people for fetish work, it will lead to the degradation of the community itself.
Your statements accusing me of being a "totalitarian thought police," a "Chinese communist," or the "arbiter of truth," are wildly inaccurate. You've inferred what you choose to believe from my post, but it's far from the reality of the situation.
Perhaps that's on me, because maybe I've not been clear enough about my feelings. I thought I was but you continue to double down about what you feel is my "1984'ish ideological" suggestion that this type of behavior is damaging to the community.
I assure you, I support the first amendment and it's implications that speech is protected. Where that protection ends is critical though. It ends when it infringes on the safety of other people. It's not OK to lean on the right to free speech as a means to harass others.
As Piewriter mentioned, I'm no moderator (and have no desire to be one), so the decision about whether or not to preserve this thread is completely out of my hands. I offered my opinion about what I thought would be beneficial to the community, respectfully. (I literally said I "respectfully disagree...) You then chose to use inflammatory language against me time and time again; a most disrespectful display that has been rightfully called out by other members of this forum.
Now, you've gone on numerous tirades about how this forum is en route to become some sort of SJW echo chamber, going so far as to call my stance "totalitarian authoritarianism." I think you really are reaching with those statements. How you came to that conclusion is on you and how you interpreted my opinions. No one else seems to have inferred such a conclusion. How did you come to that determination? It brings me back to the concept of projection. I think perhaps you seek conflict and confrontation and saw this as an opportunity to engage. Not everything is a personal attack against you and your politics. You should reflect on that.
Looking at your post history, you've shared this sentiment, uninvited, in the past before. You've also asked the forum about which social media sites are good for finding fetish content. Perhaps this subject hit a little too close to home?
I encourage you to re-read Kelsey's prior post explaining in detail why that type of behavior is problematic. She said it far better than I could.
You mentioned that social media sites are at risk of being brought to court over censorship issues, and perhaps the UMD will be subject to the same level of scrutiny and legal troubles. Comparing the UMD to sites like FB and Twitter is a huge stretch, let's be honest. But furthermore, which scenario do you think is more likely:?
1. The UMD faces civil suits because they remove content that advocates contacting unknowing innocent people who have nothing to do with this site. The members of this site form up some sort of coalition to sue the admin for moderating this site in line with the laws of the USA?
Or:
2. The UMD faces real civil liability and repercussions because we allowed this site to be the jumping board for people to locate and contact unwilling participants into our particular subculture of fetish content?
It's obvious that scenario #2 is far more likely. I'm trying to be realistic about maintaining an adult community that abides by the laws of this nation. In no way am I suggesting that we turn away from being an inclusive and open-minded forum for people to share ideas and content, respectfully. Messmaster has always done a great job of encouraging open dialogue, and I support that philosophy whole-heartedly.
I've made my arguments in good faith, respectfully. You, however, have not. You've attacked my opinions and used inflammatory language against me, and compared me to a communist. You yourself said that you want to have a productive dialogue on the matter, yet you have been by far the most derisive and abusive voice in this entire subject, singularly focused on insulting my perspective... all the while claiming to have the same opinion on the subject as me. What is your endgame? To decry this site? To try and diminish me and others? To complain about politics in general, when that had nothing to do with any of this? I reiterate, I think some self reflection would be beneficial here. I promise you, I'm trying to be open-minded to your perspective.
Since we both agree that:
1. Contacting kids' show actors/actresses is a bad idea.
and
2. Free speech and open dialogue is a good thing as long as it doesn't promote harm.
Then I don't see why you're behaving so confrontationally.
I'm not virtue signaling. If you perceive it to be so, then you are reaching and projecting. No one was out here to "get you," until you started behaving so disrespectfully.
An open dialogue about why the preservation of this thread is worthwhile would be an argument I'd be happy to engage in, but you immediately resorted to insulting me, which only makes this particular thread less likely to preserved in the long run. Frankly, I'm disappointed that the admins have allowed you to continue to drag my name through the mud, when I've been nothing but professional in my communication, while you've been behaving impudently and immaturely.
If you're attending the UMD 25th anniversary, I invite you to continue this discussion face to face. I'm happy to express my opinions in person.
Until then, I sincerely request that you keep my G%& D%#! name out your F@#!ing mouth.
I sense a lot of projection from you. You seem to have a twisted worldview, jumping to the conclusion that I have an ulterior political motive. That is far from the truth. Sadly disappointing, yet unsurprising given the divicine nature of online discourse these days.
I assure you my statement was not politically driven - far from it. I don't see why you perceived it as such. I made no mention of politics, and I assure you I am not some "virtue signaling social justice warrior," as you have accused me of being over and over.
I'm simply a person who has experienced the harmful effects that occur when online harassment spills into the real world. It's not fun. I'm a regular guy who works hard, pays taxes and takes care of my family.
If you haven't had to deal with the frustration and pain that comes with harassment, consider yourself fortunate.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that you did about my intent. My words were clear and I stand by them - It's not acceptable to harass people, and it's not ok to advocate for it here. I also think it's pretty unfortunate that you immediately resorted to insulting and disrespecting me over and over in your posts. Numerous others have voice their similar opinions, but you continue to single me out.
Let's be clear: My only interest in "moralizing censorship," is the communal interest in keeping this site online and safe from those who would risk the entire community from the consequences that will occur if we continue to align ourselves with those who seek to drag unsuspecting people into our fetish. I don't think it's acceptable to promote that behavior here.
I certainly haven't suggested any "unilateral censorship." My primary issue is that if we as a community endorse the reprehensible behavior of contacting unsuspecting people for fetish work, it will lead to the degradation of the community itself.
Your statements accusing me of being a "totalitarian thought police," a "Chinese communist," or the "arbiter of truth," are wildly inaccurate. You've inferred what you choose to believe from my post, but it's far from the reality of the situation.
Perhaps that's on me, because maybe I've not been clear enough about my feelings. I thought I was but you continue to double down about what you feel is my "1984'ish ideological" suggestion that this type of behavior is damaging to the community.
I assure you, I support the first amendment and it's implications that speech is protected. Where that protection ends is critical though. It ends when it infringes on the safety of other people. It's not OK to lean on the right to free speech as a means to harass others.
As Piewriter mentioned, I'm no moderator (and have no desire to be one), so the decision about whether or not to preserve this thread is completely out of my hands. I offered my opinion about what I thought would be beneficial to the community, respectfully. (I literally said I "respectfully disagree...) You then chose to use inflammatory language against me time and time again; a most disrespectful display that has been rightfully called out by other members of this forum.
Now, you've gone on numerous tirades about how this forum is en route to become some sort of SJW echo chamber, going so far as to call my stance "totalitarian authoritarianism." I think you really are reaching with those statements. How you came to that conclusion is on you and how you interpreted my opinions. No one else seems to have inferred such a conclusion. How did you come to that determination? It brings me back to the concept of projection. I think perhaps you seek conflict and confrontation and saw this as an opportunity to engage. Not everything is a personal attack against you and your politics. You should reflect on that.
Looking at your post history, you've shared this sentiment, uninvited, in the past before. You've also asked the forum about which social media sites are good for finding fetish content. Perhaps this subject hit a little too close to home?
I encourage you to re-read Kelsey's prior post explaining in detail why that type of behavior is problematic. She said it far better than I could.
You mentioned that social media sites are at risk of being brought to court over censorship issues, and perhaps the UMD will be subject to the same level of scrutiny and legal troubles. Comparing the UMD to sites like FB and Twitter is a huge stretch, let's be honest. But furthermore, which scenario do you think is more likely:?
1. The UMD faces civil suits because they remove content that advocates contacting unknowing innocent people who have nothing to do with this site. The members of this site form up some sort of coalition to sue the admin for moderating this site in line with the laws of the USA?
Or:
2. The UMD faces real civil liability and repercussions because we allowed this site to be the jumping board for people to locate and contact unwilling participants into our particular subculture of fetish content?
It's obvious that scenario #2 is far more likely. I'm trying to be realistic about maintaining an adult community that abides by the laws of this nation. In no way am I suggesting that we turn away from being an inclusive and open-minded forum for people to share ideas and content, respectfully. Messmaster has always done a great job of encouraging open dialogue, and I support that philosophy whole-heartedly.
I've made my arguments in good faith, respectfully. You, however, have not. You've attacked my opinions and used inflammatory language against me, and compared me to a communist. You yourself said that you want to have a productive dialogue on the matter, yet you have been by far the most derisive and abusive voice in this entire subject, singularly focused on insulting my perspective... all the while claiming to have the same opinion on the subject as me. What is your endgame? To decry this site? To try and diminish me and others? To complain about politics in general, when that had nothing to do with any of this? I reiterate, I think some self reflection would be beneficial here. I promise you, I'm trying to be open-minded to your perspective.
Since we both agree that:
1. Contacting kids' show actors/actresses is a bad idea.
and
2. Free speech and open dialogue is a good thing as long as it doesn't promote harm.
Then I don't see why you're behaving so confrontationally.
I'm not virtue signaling. If you perceive it to be so, then you are reaching and projecting. No one was out here to "get you," until you started behaving so disrespectfully.
An open dialogue about why the preservation of this thread is worthwhile would be an argument I'd be happy to engage in, but you immediately resorted to insulting me, which only makes this particular thread less likely to preserved in the long run. Frankly, I'm disappointed that the admins have allowed you to continue to drag my name through the mud, when I've been nothing but professional in my communication, while you've been behaving impudently and immaturely.
If you're attending the UMD 25th anniversary, I invite you to continue this discussion face to face. I'm happy to express my opinions in person.
Until then, I sincerely request that you keep my G%& D%#! name out your F@#!ing mouth.
As explained a few times before, I quoted your post specifically because this very statement: "I don't think any of the positions advocating (or playing "devils advocate") for this type of behavior deserve any credence on this site". The issue is not what you said (even though I have disagreements), the issue is that only you (and those agreeing with you) should be allow to have a voice.
Fair enough after reading this response, maybe I misread/misunderstood the situation, I will stand down.
I give the benefit of doubt and it seems you come from a good place having experienced harassment in the past, and want to stop that from happening to others. That is probably why we are most misaligned. I am highly skeptical and yes I may be even hostile do extreme "do good-ers" these days, because it's only a coin flip from "let's do this good thing" to "do as I say or I will make your life a living hell". So I am hostile to the loudest "moral voice" these days, because in my experience it's only a matter of time before they turn on others, and I will do what I can to discourage that from happening. As to the hostility, I see that all the time from your friends, and it's always ok for then because their cause is "moral and just" (sarc). It's unpleasant when you're on receiving end, I've been there myself many times. I empathize but I don't apologize. Again, look at your friends who have brought us to where we are today.
And if you don't understand what I'm talking about, just look at the follow up comments from producers saying there is ***no reason*** why you shouldn't enjoy pornographified WAM content. Maybe some of us do enjoy WAM that is not made for porn but still legally green, like a pie fight on college (all 18+ btw). Let's see the evolution of this shall we:
1) No 18- on the site where the person is the fetish target (not a hard one given the legalities)
2) No 18- on the site even if the person is in the background (this is legally grey at best)
3) No material meant for 18- on the site even if no 18- present in the media at all (no legal ground at this point, but afraid of mastercard/visa... ok so business justification I can be swayed)
4) Can't use questionably 18- terms (the entire "teen" nonsense) even if all content is 18+ (uhm... wtf?)
5) Why you don't like not-made-for-porn material? Must be an immoral bad person.
6) Must have made-for-porn material, no more links from youtube
We're not quite at (6) yet, but we're close just give it a few years. And let's face it, (5) and (6) is a smoke screen to sell more producer content. I have no problems with producers selling their content. It becomes a problem when people bring morality into business. It's as bad as the religious nutjobs of the past era, except this new religion that some are praying to has no god. Not to mention the hypocrisy of porn/fetish producers preaching about morality.
I still stand by that I do not like morality post of why it's wrong, but anyone is free to speak about that and I'm free to express my dislikes. To me, reasons like it's causing clear legal issues or a problem for the business (like mastercard/visa nonsense), are both arguments in the past have convinced me to agree with certain directions are needed but I personally don't like. However, "harassment", "creepy", etc. that I see most people using for justification, we all know are made up or highly subjective. And while I agree there are genuine cases for "harassment" or "creepy", I'm sorry that these days people have used this for the most frivolous matters that it has no meaning anymore. If you're angry about that, go look at your friends who are abusing the system that brought us to where we are today.
As for the legal stuff, I agree it is a longshot, but this type of things have been increasingly common. Like this example:
2. The UMD faces real civil liability and repercussions because we allowed this site to be the jumping board for people to locate and contact unwilling participants into our particular subculture of fetish content?
where people think they can go after others because they don't like what is being said even if no laws have been broken. By this logic, the old school yellow pages phone book should be sued to oblivion. And let's say in the off chance that lawsuits happen, then yes, the countersuit:
1. The UMD faces civil suits because they remove content that advocates contacting unknowing innocent people who have nothing to do with this site. The members of this site form up some sort of coalition to sue the admin for moderating this site in line with the laws of the USA?
needs to follow as well. Appeasement will only show weakness and embolden the other side more.
At the end of the day, perhaps you are right, and I should not have clicked on this thread. Maybe I'll stick to posts that have clear WAM content moving forward.
Someone complaining about preaching morals goes on a preaching morals tirade completely oblivious of the irony.
DungeonMasterOne said:
Given we have professionally produced adult content catering to almost every taste imaginable (and customs for things that producers haven't imagined so far), I really don't get the continuing appeal of "mainstream" scenes. Anything from a TV show is almost inevitably going to be (from a wammer's POV) appalingly badly edited, missing major money shots, lacking in after-views, and just generally inferior in every way to anything that an actual WAM producer could create. I remember when I taped stuff off TV 30+ years ago. If you were lucky you'd get a couple of points in a scene where you could freeze-frame the VHS and have that one perfect shot. But it was literally that, a single frozen moment that worked. Now we have full-motion high-resolution video featuring people who know what they're doing and are happy to be gunged with full understanding that it's sexual. It's like comparing shiny printed paper to actual gold and diamonds.
Given we have professionally produced adult content catering to almost every taste imaginable (and customs for things that producers haven't imagined so far), I really don't get the continuing appeal of "mainstream" scenes. Anything from a TV show is almost inevitably going to be (from a wammer's POV) appalingly badly edited, missing major money shots, lacking in after-views, and just generally inferior in every way to anything that an actual WAM producer could create. I remember when I taped stuff off TV 30+ years ago. If you were lucky you'd get a couple of points in a scene where you could freeze-frame the VHS and have that one perfect shot. But it was literally that, a single frozen moment that worked. Now we have full-motion high-resolution video featuring people who know what they're doing and are happy to be gunged with full understanding that it's sexual. It's like comparing shiny printed paper to actual gold and diamonds.
"Appallingly badly edited"? Is it so hard to believe that for people who developed their love of WAM through TV they still have a soft spot for those elements you disregard? That sometimes the "polish" and intention of professionally produced WAM can be a bug, not a feature?
I honestly don't know what this cluster of a thread is really about, but a little respect please for those who still appreciate televised WAM and don't need the five minutes of awkward "after views," crappy posing, and super close-up "money shots" that professional fetish producers think everyone wants. It's a shame to see a community that grew because of diverse preferences now having mods characterize anything that isn't their preferred produced WAM as "inferior."
Fair enough after reading this response, maybe I misread/misunderstood the situation, I will stand down.
I give the benefit of doubt and it seems you come from a good place having experienced harassment in the past, and want to stop that from happening to others. That is probably why we are most misaligned. I am highly skeptical and yes I may be even hostile do extreme "do good-ers" these days, because it's only a coin flip from "let's do this good thing" to "do as I say or I will make your life a living hell". So I am hostile to the loudest "moral voice" these days, because in my experience it's only a matter of time before they turn on others, and I will do what I can to discourage that from happening. As to the hostility, I see that all the time from your friends, and it's always ok for then because their cause is "moral and just" (sarc). It's unpleasant when you're on receiving end, I've been there myself many times. I empathize but I don't apologize. Again, look at your friends who have brought us to where we are today.
I appreciate that you replied to my response without direct insult. Thank you for that. To be clear, I wouldn't say that the others who have replied are "my friends." Nearly all of them I'm not UMD friends with, and I'm pretty private otherwise. I think that the other voices spoke for themselves, and I would like to believe that in a proper debate, everyone involved represents their own unique opinion.
If you've experienced hostility from others, I'm sorry to hear that - I know some of the comments towards you were removed because of harsh language. I think it's inappropriate in both directions.
I have been dealing with a stalker ex-gf since November 2020. I quite literally had the police over 2 hours ago to file yet another report against her and am headed to the courthouse on Tuesday to file the order of protection. It's unfortunate how easy it is these days to be able to make someone's life miserable remotely with very little effort while still remaining anonymous. I think I finally have enough documentation to proceed with the order.
It's fine, in my opinion, for you to have the stance that you do (when presented respectfully), and I'm glad to discuss it without name calling. I don't agree with some of the most broad points that you make, but I truly believe it's a very nuanced situation. One wherein escalation to jumping to extreme conclusions is not productive to the conversation.
I'm in the camp of those who are satisfied with professional adult content producers being the primary source of material for this site. I completely recognize that many of us, myself included, developed our feelings in our youth while watching content that was produced for the mainstream. Many of these mainstream clips were fundamental in our development. Plenty of these videos or pictures fall well within the content policy of this site: The great race, 3 stooges, three's company, etc... All featuring paid professional adults who were creating mainstream slapstick content, featuring no minors.
But then there's the question of content that was formative to us that was geared towards the younger audience. I was young in the 80's and 90's and watched all the same nickelodeon shows and other sitcoms and recognize the significance that these scenes played in the development of the fetish as I went through adolescence. But when we become of age, the question of scenes involving people not of legal age (18+ in the USA) used for pornography is pretty black and white.
So now, there's this fine line that the UMD was obligated to take a stance upon many years ago: Scenes that may involve minors in the background while adults participate. It's movies or TV. Adults might be the ones being candidly wammed, but the audience has kids, or something of that ilk. It was a long time ago, but there were debates back then about how to handle those situations, and the admins decided that it was not going to be acceptable for legal reasons, which makes perfect sense. The splash page of this site explicitly states that it is an adult site for adults only, and when confronted with gray areas, the choice was made to not allow those types of content, to allow for the continual development of this community without the risk of legal repercussions.
That type of content is still readily available on other public platforms such as Youtube, wherein the primary focus of the site is not meant to be adult in nature. The decision not to provide the link from this site to those direct links is in the best interests of this community, in my opinion. It is clearly on the right side of the law
We know that they at best they were paid 18+ actors portraying children, but in some cases, they were kids themselves at the time of filming. So by reaching out to them, one would be bringing a request with a sexual connotation to someone who had no understanding or inclination whatsoever and may have been a minor at the time of filming. I think it's not hard to justify why that stuff was removed from this a long long time ago.
Finally, the last questionable category of non-pro clips are those taken candidly featuring situations with messy content from sites like FB, tiktok, instagram, youtube, etc... The subject is of legal age, but completely unfamiliar that their upload is attracting fetish-minded people. This site allows it and it certainly can be a source of some interesting videos. I can see the pro's and cons of both sides of allowing it. I don't have a dog in the fight per-se, but I tend to err on the side that you share. "If you put it online, expect it to be shared, along with whatever becomes of that. "
So, back to the original point. This site is pretty much the only primary site for wet and messy fetish content to the western world. They have to be especially careful about which content they choose to host, but also what they directly link to. In situations where minors are present, they've chosen to be very clear that it is not acceptable, which makes perfect sense.
The issue with contacting people personally and asking them about these things is that it ranges into the territory of harassment quite easily. Which not only is awful for the person being harassed but it may lead to legitimate complaints which lead to actual shutdowns of this site.
The issue with hosting arguments that offer viewpoints that rationalize inappropriate behavior is that it can trigger further incidents of harassment, stalking and violence. Nobody in their right mind wants that.
With all that said, I've now changed my mind and agree that this entire thread should be saved in perpetuity, because we've picked apart a number of significant issues related to this site.
To you, thanks for at least being civil in your response. It makes for a better dialogue.
Just to offer a bit of levity in a long and serious debate . . .
Oh no, there are miners in my profile picture!
Oh no, there are miners in my profile picture!
An interesting thread and a good debate. One thing I have yet to see either side bring up, however, is the fact that working actors and actresses usually have something in common...
They usually have agents who represent them in their professional selections of which roles they are approached with for acting work. If a former actress is no longer "in the business" and does not have agency representation, then that should be a pretty solid clue that they no longer wish to be involved in taking on roles, and frankly that applies to any kind of work, fetish or mainstream. And as such, it is inappropriate to pursue them as such. They are/were involved as professionals at one point in their lives, but people change careers and move on it life, and their choice to do so as individuals is reasonable regardless of anyone's personal desires to see them in any role.
And if anyone in the business, regardless of however long they have been in the business, is still looking for new work? Anyone who has an idea for a role whatever it may be should contact THEIR AGENT, not stalk the actor/actress and harass them about it. If someone is pursuing acting as a profession, then they typically have an agent/agency whose job it is to filter through incoming offers/potential work and filter out roles that they have been told by the actor/actress that they are not interested in doing, as well as roles that the agent has a professional responsibility to suggest that said offer may not be in their client's long-term interests- and is is their day job to be the person who brings said offers to the professional actor/actress, to let them decide if they have any further interest in taking the role or not, in a safe and professional manner. There's a reason its called show BUSINESS after all, right? And frankly, anyone who is typically serious about a legitimate offer of a role for a legitimate production, understands this and also understands that working through the System is how it is done, whatever the role and production might be. It also offers a layer of insulation for the actor/actress that allows them to make their own choice without the "creep" factor coming into play. If they do not want to be involved in whatever the production is, they have the control to look at their agent and say "Oh, hell no!" and that be that, from their perspective- and it is the agent's job to decline the offer to whomever. At that point, it is just business and so long as "No" is respected in the process by all parties, then that's one thing. But I have yet to hear of anyone suggesting this approach instead of stalking the actress in their personal life.
As to Chris' posts and reactions, all I will add is that as this site's long term conservative gun owning "right winger", I can understand why he seems sensitive to the issue. In this same thread, there's at least one "This is how we got Trump" remark that is accepted by many and that has been going on for many years now. And frankly, those of us on the right are getting tired of seeing the other side become more and more violent towards us, just like the guy who ran over the 18-year-old kid and killed him because of his political beliefs. That sort of thing seems like it is not only becoming more common these days, but it is reinforced by many who think it is somehow morally justifiable because "THOSE people are Evil and so they DESERVE it!". The problem becomes that as this goes on, you start to see both sides become more polarizing and then accepting of dehumanizng their opposition. And if you studied anything of the last century's history, it should be pretty obvious where that leads to eventually, on both the Left AND the Right. When people are finally backed into a corner in their society, it is human nature to get angry about it and to eventually respond to those they legitimately see (from their own experiences) as "out to get them" and silence/remove them. First by their voices, then by their ability to live their lives, then by their basic rights, and eventually by removal and extermination. Those who think that the Right in this country are the ONLY ones capable of being "the bad guys" have never lived through the "cancel culture" and IF they have, then they should know better about what it leads to.
So yeah, when Chris is sensitive to seeing what HE believes is calls for censorship and cancelling, I can understand his concern. I have, in the past here, been on the receiving end of some of that myself. So be it; I have a right to express my opinions and so do those who choose to disagree with me, or to even hate me for it. I backed off from here quite a bit a while back because of that sort of thing, and yes I *do* realize that I am in a minority here for my political beliefs. I usually try not to bring them into most of my posts despite the fact that some others that are and have been members here over the years think that they are the only ones whose opinions should be "allowed" to exist or to be expressed. There is a certain irony that some of those same people who argue against discrimination of any kind here are also the first ones to actively engage in the exact same behavior when they decide that someone else's difference of beliefs is not "acceptable". But whatever. The point of all this is that I can appreciate why Chris is sensitive to the idea that the notion of censorship of ideas- even those that others may find objectionable- leads to eventual problems on deeper levels- rings true. As a wise man once wrote "I completely disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and I think that in this particular instance, that proverbial sore nerve led to his reaction to something that was not meant in the context that he took it and reacted to it. I get it. But I don't believe this was the case here. Caution's comments did not come off to me as being "communist" in nature, and I am about as anti-communist as anyone on this board has ever been. Like, to the point where "Rafal Ganowicz is my Spirit Animal" anti-communist. So when I say that Caution doesn't strike me as that applying to his statements, I am pretty secure in that opinion.
Anyway, I can see BOTH sides to this offshoot of the debate, and I did want to add the above point about actresses and actors and agents/agencies/professional representation because I hadn't seen that aspect mentioned in all this yet.
They usually have agents who represent them in their professional selections of which roles they are approached with for acting work. If a former actress is no longer "in the business" and does not have agency representation, then that should be a pretty solid clue that they no longer wish to be involved in taking on roles, and frankly that applies to any kind of work, fetish or mainstream. And as such, it is inappropriate to pursue them as such. They are/were involved as professionals at one point in their lives, but people change careers and move on it life, and their choice to do so as individuals is reasonable regardless of anyone's personal desires to see them in any role.
And if anyone in the business, regardless of however long they have been in the business, is still looking for new work? Anyone who has an idea for a role whatever it may be should contact THEIR AGENT, not stalk the actor/actress and harass them about it. If someone is pursuing acting as a profession, then they typically have an agent/agency whose job it is to filter through incoming offers/potential work and filter out roles that they have been told by the actor/actress that they are not interested in doing, as well as roles that the agent has a professional responsibility to suggest that said offer may not be in their client's long-term interests- and is is their day job to be the person who brings said offers to the professional actor/actress, to let them decide if they have any further interest in taking the role or not, in a safe and professional manner. There's a reason its called show BUSINESS after all, right? And frankly, anyone who is typically serious about a legitimate offer of a role for a legitimate production, understands this and also understands that working through the System is how it is done, whatever the role and production might be. It also offers a layer of insulation for the actor/actress that allows them to make their own choice without the "creep" factor coming into play. If they do not want to be involved in whatever the production is, they have the control to look at their agent and say "Oh, hell no!" and that be that, from their perspective- and it is the agent's job to decline the offer to whomever. At that point, it is just business and so long as "No" is respected in the process by all parties, then that's one thing. But I have yet to hear of anyone suggesting this approach instead of stalking the actress in their personal life.
As to Chris' posts and reactions, all I will add is that as this site's long term conservative gun owning "right winger", I can understand why he seems sensitive to the issue. In this same thread, there's at least one "This is how we got Trump" remark that is accepted by many and that has been going on for many years now. And frankly, those of us on the right are getting tired of seeing the other side become more and more violent towards us, just like the guy who ran over the 18-year-old kid and killed him because of his political beliefs. That sort of thing seems like it is not only becoming more common these days, but it is reinforced by many who think it is somehow morally justifiable because "THOSE people are Evil and so they DESERVE it!". The problem becomes that as this goes on, you start to see both sides become more polarizing and then accepting of dehumanizng their opposition. And if you studied anything of the last century's history, it should be pretty obvious where that leads to eventually, on both the Left AND the Right. When people are finally backed into a corner in their society, it is human nature to get angry about it and to eventually respond to those they legitimately see (from their own experiences) as "out to get them" and silence/remove them. First by their voices, then by their ability to live their lives, then by their basic rights, and eventually by removal and extermination. Those who think that the Right in this country are the ONLY ones capable of being "the bad guys" have never lived through the "cancel culture" and IF they have, then they should know better about what it leads to.
So yeah, when Chris is sensitive to seeing what HE believes is calls for censorship and cancelling, I can understand his concern. I have, in the past here, been on the receiving end of some of that myself. So be it; I have a right to express my opinions and so do those who choose to disagree with me, or to even hate me for it. I backed off from here quite a bit a while back because of that sort of thing, and yes I *do* realize that I am in a minority here for my political beliefs. I usually try not to bring them into most of my posts despite the fact that some others that are and have been members here over the years think that they are the only ones whose opinions should be "allowed" to exist or to be expressed. There is a certain irony that some of those same people who argue against discrimination of any kind here are also the first ones to actively engage in the exact same behavior when they decide that someone else's difference of beliefs is not "acceptable". But whatever. The point of all this is that I can appreciate why Chris is sensitive to the idea that the notion of censorship of ideas- even those that others may find objectionable- leads to eventual problems on deeper levels- rings true. As a wise man once wrote "I completely disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and I think that in this particular instance, that proverbial sore nerve led to his reaction to something that was not meant in the context that he took it and reacted to it. I get it. But I don't believe this was the case here. Caution's comments did not come off to me as being "communist" in nature, and I am about as anti-communist as anyone on this board has ever been. Like, to the point where "Rafal Ganowicz is my Spirit Animal" anti-communist. So when I say that Caution doesn't strike me as that applying to his statements, I am pretty secure in that opinion.
Anyway, I can see BOTH sides to this offshoot of the debate, and I did want to add the above point about actresses and actors and agents/agencies/professional representation because I hadn't seen that aspect mentioned in all this yet.
50 characters
TheSpecialist said:
"Appallingly badly edited"? Is it so hard to believe that for people who developed their love of WAM through TV they still have a soft spot for those elements you disregard? That sometimes the "polish" and intention of professionally produced WAM can be a bug, not a feature?
DungeonMasterOne said:
Given we have professionally produced adult content catering to almost every taste imaginable (and customs for things that producers haven't imagined so far), I really don't get the continuing appeal of "mainstream" scenes. Anything from a TV show is almost inevitably going to be (from a wammer's POV) appalingly badly edited, missing major money shots, lacking in after-views, and just generally inferior in every way to anything that an actual WAM producer could create. I remember when I taped stuff off TV 30+ years ago. If you were lucky you'd get a couple of points in a scene where you could freeze-frame the VHS and have that one perfect shot. But it was literally that, a single frozen moment that worked. Now we have full-motion high-resolution video featuring people who know what they're doing and are happy to be gunged with full understanding that it's sexual. It's like comparing shiny printed paper to actual gold and diamonds.
Given we have professionally produced adult content catering to almost every taste imaginable (and customs for things that producers haven't imagined so far), I really don't get the continuing appeal of "mainstream" scenes. Anything from a TV show is almost inevitably going to be (from a wammer's POV) appalingly badly edited, missing major money shots, lacking in after-views, and just generally inferior in every way to anything that an actual WAM producer could create. I remember when I taped stuff off TV 30+ years ago. If you were lucky you'd get a couple of points in a scene where you could freeze-frame the VHS and have that one perfect shot. But it was literally that, a single frozen moment that worked. Now we have full-motion high-resolution video featuring people who know what they're doing and are happy to be gunged with full understanding that it's sexual. It's like comparing shiny printed paper to actual gold and diamonds.
"Appallingly badly edited"? Is it so hard to believe that for people who developed their love of WAM through TV they still have a soft spot for those elements you disregard? That sometimes the "polish" and intention of professionally produced WAM can be a bug, not a feature?
Ok, that's an interesting viewpoint and I'll admit not one I'd considered. I was one of those who developed my love of WAM through 80s and 90s TV shows, but I always found it incredibly frustrating how often we couldn't really see what was happening properly, because of set design, or camera angles, or the director cutting away to the celebrity host just as the good stuff was happening, etc.
TheSpecialist said: I honestly don't know what this cluster of a thread is really about, but a little respect please for those who still appreciate televised WAM and don't need the five minutes of awkward "after views," crappy posing, and super close-up "money shots" that professional fetish producers think everyone wants. It's a shame to see a community that grew because of diverse preferences now having mods characterize anything that isn't their preferred produced WAM as "inferior."
Just to clarify, by "money shots" I don't necessarily mean crotch close-ups or nudity, but just clear views of the messing of the recipient, as it is happening. I mean the Noel's House Party gunge tank was great, but the original tank (the one the Moomins now have) used to go completely opaque with side-splash, including the front door, as soon as the gunge hit the person's head and splashed off, so you couldn't actuall see what was happening. Nowadays it's had the front door removed so you can still see everything as the gunge comes down. Or the "Love Boats" game on Bob's Your Uncle, where sometimes just as the next member of the wedding party was stepping into the sinking boat, the scene would cut to Bob telling a joke, and so you'd miss seeing the person sitting down into the water.
I have also seen lots of comments like "wish we could see her come out again" when say a news or weather presenter jumps into a swimming pool with their clothes on, so I've got the impression that most wam fans similaraly prefer being able to see more of a scene, and more detail.
But OK, fair enough, it honestly hadn't occurred to me that anyone might actually prefer the mainstream TV show approach. I certainly don't think that TV finds featuring adults should be banned or anything like that, and just occasionally there have been some great ones, with clear views and great shots. They're just very few and far between.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
3 People Chatting
Mike Nomic
Pielover918
wetandmessyfun KT
