...has some good videos, if you like that kind of thing!

LINK REMOVED

(couldn't find mention of 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' on the forum previously, but sorry if this is a repost).


LINK REMOVED

Some of these girls look underage...

I don't know they all look of age to me, but that's just my opinion

He said in the comments for one video that both girls in it are 16.

I take my comment back then

Was thinking much the same thing that the girls looked under aged to be linked on this site. Thanks for comfirming that Elephant. Thats it, contact a mod and pull the plug on it here.

That was fast. Great job, to mod on duty.

I just yanked them.. but left the post in place so that nobody will think that we're removing posts for nefarious reasons. I've also removed the vid from the archive but if anyone finds it hidden away on the site, send me a PM to my inbox so I can track it down and snuff it out

midniter

Sorry, but I have to question this edit. There were two links posted: one to a specific video, and a second to a Youtube channel listing multiple videos.

If elephant_on_fire's research regarding the age of some of the people in the videos at the Youtube channel link was verified by a moderator, then obviously it was appropriate to delete that.

However, the blonde girl in the standalone video looked to me like she was in her 20s (I certainly don't remember any girls in high school who were built like that!). Midniter, did you in fact find some evidence to the contrary? If not I would respectfully suggest that the deletion of that link was premature.

Always better safe than sorry to remove.

To those disappointed, just think about the plethora of awesome certifiably legal wam stuff we already DO have, and how you probably won't be able to see all of it in a lifetime!

Most likely because you won't be able to afford it all, but nevertheless...

I do hope that all wam producers will give a 2-week warning before they go out of business forever!

No... I didn't verify the links. I simply deleted them based upon the general consensus of the members responding to the thread. As stated by Elephant_on_fire...

Based on that statement, I removed the link and all info that could link to it.

Since there was a name used, I felt that any source that would permit someone to search youtube using a keyword search was unacceptable. Much the same as was the case with the other thread that bosunbob removed last week. What's the point in removing a link if other key info is left to access?

Lately, there seems to be an increased degree of scrutiny on how the UMD moderators and administrators handle issues on this website by you regisblb. If you feel so strongly that we are hiding things from our members and removing information/posts that nosey nelly's feel deprived of, feel free to contact Messmaster and express your concerns.

This thread could have easily been deleted and vanished from existence and had you not seen it, you never would have been any the wiser. But I chose to leave it here as an act of transparency and yet you still question my motives. I feel that nothing we do here with regards to policing the site will satisfy you. You seem quite intent on finding fault in whatever we do. But in the end, the security and integrity of this website is paramount. If you don't like how we moderate the site, feel free to move along.

midniter

Using that reasoning, you might as well delete any posts that bash on [censored] for creeping on girls on Youtube, both underage and overage, or that talk about growing up as a kid and watching [censored] on TV.

(Not saying that this link removal was bad, but there needs to be a clearer policy on mentions without links.)

And now in a few months someone else will make this same thread because they'll search the forum for [censored] and not find anything

Midniter, I have been a member in good standing for over 12 years, and frankly I'm offended that you see fit to invite me to leave the UMD for no reason other than my polite second-guessing of two debatable calls by moderators. That seems totally contrary to the spirit of open discussion that Messmaster has tried to establish here. I'm obviously not a troll and everything I have written on this subject has been with the goal of improving the UMD, and your response is to suggest I take a hike. Reluctantly, then, I have to counter by wondering if you have the right attitude to be an effective moderator at this point.

Further to that point: You really deleted links from a post without doing anything yourself to verify the claims made against that content? What's the point of having moderators if a "general consensus" from the peanut gallery is all it takes to trigger an edit? I would argue that any deletions should be based on, if not actual evidence, then at a minimum on a moderator's careful, good-faith assessment of the content that's being questioned. It seems to me that there are a few posters who seem to enjoy popping up and saying "she looks like she might be underage" in response to EVERYTHING, whether or not it's even close to being the case, I guess because they like the attention. It would be a mistake to let those folks lead the discussion, which is what's been happening lately. The result of that is that (1) we're deprived of content that's probably legitimate (which is what I suspect happened in this thread); and (2) we end up with a lot of unproductive discussion of the minor issue, far out of proportion to the amount of inappropriate content that actually gets posted, and those discussions, ironically, end up giving the impression that the UMD is full of pedos.

I've always been reluctant to publicly criticize any moderators here because I realize it's a thankless job and I doubt I could do it any better myself. But, Midniter, I found your comment above deeply disappointing and I felt it was important to explain why.

midniter's statement seemed pretty contained and courteous to me... I agree the UMD's paranoia about minors can be beyond extreme at times but you don't need to take it out on the mods, they're pretty much just doing their job the best they know how...

I saw the clip and felt quite uneasy. I would of removed the link. I rather err on the side of caution. If it means I upset members because I want to "protect" UMD from closing down then I will apoligise to each and every member but I will never change that way I moderate. If you disagree with that then please feel free to PM Messmaster and voice your concern.

Middy removed the link. He was right. The user wtfdownloads was not reprimanded for posting the link by middy. He was right because oversights do happen.

May I suggest to some that there is no conspiracy happening on UMD and maybe you've been watching too much WWE!

Good call. Better to err on caution.

Well, fair enough. That sounds more like the process working like it ought to work than anything else posted in this thread.

Are you saying that there is a C-O-N...spiracy?

I agree. Bluntly it had to be pulled. Anything remotely involving minors has to be. There truely is no room to argue around this point.

I applaud the Mods for their work in covering all our backsides from this . . crap and for protecting the UMD as a community. Next time someone wants to post matteral with minors, just pull the whole thing, and end it there.

I see threads like this and want to look some of you in the eye and say " Really ?!? ". Engage brains please.

This is way I'm not on here as much as I used to be. And why I don't accept friends request from just anybody.

Mid, thanks for removing the link. And thank you for leaving up the thread itself in the interest of transparency. Regisblb, thank you for asking why we removed the link. I don't ever want you to feel stifled in querying us on why we do things here. Some people are more inquisitive than others, and are more active in scrutinizing things that happen around here. It's people like you who help us to re-examine some of the things we do routinely and help us to ensure that we don't settle into a rut of self-perpetuating confidence in our decisions. Mid was right to remove the link, even if it was only to err on the side of caution, and you were absolutely in the right to ask why it was removed.

Peace,
Messmaster