Controversial and probably the more effective take is this: Remove the clip store and take it offsite under a completely different name so there is no longer the association involved. Seeing how everyone seems to be so afraid of what processing thinks of everything, remove the variable from the field of play. Anything is better than seeing both sides of this discussion grasping at straws. Keep the implementation of the 18 plus rule on who appears in the clip and move on. That way one side has its security, and the other side can share media without the fear of it being struck down simply because it shares the same name as a prior program. *shrug*

Edit: I honestly have no dog in this fight but one has to agree that to nuke a discussion on a show simply because it so happens to share the same name as a program before it is a little ridiculous and overzealous. Context has to account for something otherwise why bother permitting anything

I completely agree with you. A kink site cannot serve multiple masters. Commercial interests vs. government interest vs. amateur interest vs. every other interest under the sun were bound to clash. I don't think anyone's asking anyone to give up the money the clip store earns, but eventually you need to set your foot down on what you want this site to be.

WAM is for everyone, but the UMD can't be.

Pardon the tangent, but I remember a long time ago, when the sensibilities of WAM just started to shift from "The most hardcore is full-frontal with the copious slime" to "If you're not doing pie-in-the-face blowjobs and baked bean masturbation, you're vanilla." There was an interesting series of discussion on whether there should be some kind of "brand split" where an offshoot of the UMD could focus on non-nude/non-hardcore WAM. Admittedly, that was a little pie in the sky and apparently a technical bitch to set up, but this goes to show that the conversation is far from over.

The thing about fetishes that nobody wants to admit is: you're as interested in your own as you are repulsed by others'. And the more varieties of WAM that spring up, the less connected all users are going to feel to what's going on. Going back to the original point of this whole thread: if it seems like the forum kinda sucks, it could be because there's just too much of what you don't want. I mean, all the other shit re: moderation and content restrictions is true. But there's that too.

I think that regardless of where people stand on this issue, this discussion probably could have been handled in direct messages with the parties involved rather than a 5-page discussion forum taking place over the course of several days. The public, emotional call-outs questioning people's intelligence and integrity are not helping this to be a productive conversation either. I'd say that when forum threads rage out of control like this, THAT is when the forum sucks, and this is when the vibe of the site gets affected.

Absolutely agree

Exactly!!!

It does not make sense to say the credit card company bots see the corporate underage style clips, but not the produced clips that contain some of the titles related to underage attire. Prom dresses, school girl outfits etc. That distinction makes it seem like it is more against popular TV clips.

I think this discussion while taking various twists and turns from the main topic, is related and an important conversation about the forums and about consistency.

YouTube is Google, which is one of the most powerful corporations on the planet. YouTube is also not officially a fetish platform, for all that there's tonnes of fetish content on there. Means the rules for them are very, very different. Even PornHub was a minnow compared to Google, never mind us.


Honestly? I don't know. It may well be that such things will eventually be outlawed by the billers in the same way kids show logos and titles have already been, but so far they haven't. I gather there is something of a tradition of using the term "schoolgirl" in mainstream porn. Don't know if that makes a difference? But I do get your point about consistency.

Obvs anything made by a producer means full ID at every step so regardless what terms are used, everyone is proven to be over 18, which probably does make a difference at least for producer content.

"Chocolate/Vanilla"

This is kinda what echoes in my brain whenever I'm creating.

Example: you are at an Ice cream party. I like vanilla Ice cream but you like chocolate Ice cream. Well that's fine so long as I get my vanilla and you get your chocolate.

"Chocolate/Vanilla"

This is the thought process of many people so as long as you have a good balance of all elements people came to see, they will not just be happy and return but also engage.

Now this isn't a petition to "please everyone", because that's bullshit. You just can't but you can make a platform where like minded individuals can discuss their similarities and differences with pretty healthy moral providing what you offer is balanced.

Take what I do for example: At its core, what I do isn't all that scientific. Hot oil and mud wrestling. Take two ladies, put them in a pit and ring the bell. Done right? Here is the catch: I got the WAM community looking for the mess and I have the female wrestling aficionados looking for the wrestling. Both want exclusively what they are looking for and it's my job to deliver on both accounts. Everything I do beyond that is a matter of how much can I dial up the voltage.

Do I believe a healthy balance can be achieved here with particular topic? Of course but both sides will need to make concessions. Can that happen is a matter of chance really.

Again, I don't know what MM is up against. I have no idea what it is like working with CCbill or the other guys and I am JUST getting into looking at my own merchant account next week so I can start selling our content direct instead of C4S. What appears simple can be a logistical nightmare on the back end.

I agree and really like this point. I can imagine that if this site was 90% of one thing like savory scenes, then I would be disappointed because I'm repulsed by it (I am just using savory as an example, I'm not saying it is bad).

If there was a content restriction which banned the things I am interested in like scenes containing nudity, then I would be outraged (I'm not implying there is anything wrong about fully clothed scenes).

For the folks who like links to mainstream or game shows, this site must feel the worst because it is rare to see new links. There are very few that are allowed.

Some people are only interested in clothed scenes while others like nude. Some people are interested in just mud. Everything is all mixed together in one "messy" forum. If it was split, it would just create separate smaller communities. It is both a good and bad thing that it is one "messy" forum.

Maybe a feature could be added to exclude posts and scenes with tags that have certain keywords so that people can avoid the content that is repulsive to them.

Another idea is to use the "block" feature to block certain producers post. If people find certain producer's content repulsive, they can block that user's post. There have been several opinions stated about the undesirable explicit content, undesirable quality of the models, and undesirable quality of film. Has anyone tried blocking posts from producers which they do not want to see? I think if you block enough producers, it would look like this forum is just filled with just users. It would only contain discovery posts, people sharing experiences, asking for advice, and all of the other things users post. It is also made very easy in the UI to block producer's posts.

You come here to masturbate? I come here for world news and celebrity gossip. I go to CSPAN to bust.

Why can't we have long discussions like this on topics like music or movies?

Not sure but the newest Motionless in White slaps!

Um... Hi, everyone. I'm... just some random guy here. I've bought a few videos, but mosty I've just kind of existed in the background. That's all I'm really good at honestly, I always have a hard time keeping up and staying engaged in communities like this one. Despite that, I've actually been hovering around the WAM community for a really long time, and I just felt like I really needed to say this.

One of the points that keeps getting brought up is how there's not a lot of discussion of UMD alternatives. Some are suggesting that it's being actively discouraged and suppressed, and maybe that's even true for a few people here, I honestly don't know. But you know, the fact is, since I first got into WAM stuff, a lot of those other places have... disappeared. EC Gunge is gone. TellyGunge is gone. The WAM Story Archive is gone. It successor, the WAM Library, is gone. I was in some of the old Yahoo Groups from a different era, which are all gone. There's still stuff on YouTube, but all the early stuff I found before I knew what I was looking for is long gone. Most of the little sites I used to visit a lot are gone, or they've stopped updating, or they've stopped doing much. The early story sites I found that got me going in the first place, some of them are at least still in the Wayback Machine, but most I can't find anymore.

This community is no stranger to seeing stuff disappear. And it's here too, of course. I have no idea what actually went down with Messy Jessie, but I know about Ariel and MostWam. And each time, people said things like, "make sure you buy what you want now, you never know when it'll disappear". That's the history of this community, really. We're a fringe fetish group most people don't even know about, and we tend to get slapped hard out of the blue. It's been rough for everyone, and a lot of people have dropped out in that time, for one reason or another.

But through it all, UMD has been here. My only posts before this were in a thread from when WAM Story Archive disappeared. Regardless of how anyone felt about it, this was where people congregrated in the aftermath, because they knew this is where they could go. The site's changed plenty since the old days, and plenty of stuff has vanished too, but at the end of the day this is kind of our central pillar. It's not universal, it's not perfect, and it's had plenty of controversies, but it's still the place we could always return home to.

People like us get shut out a lot. The internet isn't nearly so free as it used to be, and the laws and principles of a lot of different places and groups have made it harder to do anything at all sexual, even if our fetish is by-and-large on the harmless side. Finance companies tighten the noose on erotic content of all types, people's attempts to protect children get complicated and hard to follow, and much of the public thinks of people like as us crazy perverts whose opinions aren't important. Yet despite all that, Messmaster has kept this place safe for us through it all. There's still a place for us because of his dedication, and that of the people who work with him to keep things going.

There's been plenty of things I'm unhappy about, sure. I mean, look at my profile picture - that's a Japanese video game character. My "normal" hobbies get battered a lot too, and I very much enjoy their overlap with WAM content... a niche that's getting harder to maintain at all somewhere like UMD, where a lot of rules have been laid down that make it hard and err on the side of removal. But, honestly, I'm okay with that, because that's how UMD has been able to survive through all this. It's confusing sometimes, and overly-cautious sometimes, but that's not the fault of Messmaster or the moderators, that's the chaotic legal, political, financial, and social situation the world has tangled itself into, and these people work hard to maintain a place for weirdoes like me through it all. I don't blame them for being cautious, some of them have seen even more of WAM's buried history than I have, with all its conflicts and controversies, and yes, casualties. It's been depressing to watch, so I'm very grateful that they're able to defend this bastion for us. If that means being overly-cautious and overzealous at times to make sure we don't lose that, I'm all for it.

Sorry to stick my head out all of a sudden, I'll fade back into the darkness now.

A few people had comments on my last post, so a few responses are in order. So here are a few responses, in order:

For dalamar666: I used a 3rd party site to illustrate different people will define "child content" differently. I never intended to suggest we should use that site's judgement over MM's - the list of banned subjects I proposed should be based on MM's own decisions. Otherwise MM would have all the accountability over those decisions and none of the control, which would be madness. I didn't realise it could read like you thought - thanks for the chance to point that out!

For DungeonMasterOne: You are correct, I conflated two issues. namely "child content" and "family content". Because I view them as the same thing, namely "stuff kids watch". You see them as separate - I hope we can agree to differ. And for the UMD's sake I hope the credit card companies agree with your interpretation and not mine.

In response to MM asking for "serious" input, I proposed an improvement to the implementation of the current policy - specifically, a list of what is and is not considered a banned subject, show by show, available for all to see in the ToS. I even said "No need to change policy, just communicate it better and allow for refinements over time". Your reply defended both the policy (which, again, I agree with) and the implementation as working fine and not needing to change - but then why ask for input? I'll explain why I proposed using a list, and I'll avoid specific cases this time - I'll use an analogy.

Imagine a park-keeper, who has a lawn that has been re-seeded after damage. He has two options for protecting the lawn while the seeds take root. Option 1 is to stand by the lawn and anytime anyone walks on it he shouts "Get off the lawn!". If they don't ask why he lets them walk off. If they ask why he explains it's because of re-seeding. He then repeats this every few minutes with each new person, one at a time, ad infinitum. Option 2 is to put up a "Please keep off the lawn" sign, with an explanation below explaining it's because of re-seeding. Any transgressors can be directed to the sign, by any park user. The policy becomes self-policing, and the park-keeper can return to his regular patrols.

For clarity, the first option is the equivalent of what the UMD is now doing - only pointing out the policy to transgressors, and only explaining the reasoning behind decisions on request. The second option is the equivalent of what I proposed - a list, maintained in the ToS, that everyone can refer to. The second option is better in almost every way - more transparent, more user-friendly, more responsive, more efficient, etc. If that isn't obvious, I'm not sure what else to say. It's you as a Mod that has to answer the queries, and MM who has to deal with the complaints. If you prefer the first option, genuinely, good luck with that. I was asked for input, I provided it - my job is done. DM me if you have any further queries.

For SloppyT, and the wider PoR debate: It's sadly a lot more complicated. While PoR is now a family show, it was originally a kids show. And it uses the same logo - on the backdrop, the clothing, the trophies, even the base of the pies. So any clip from the rebooted show still falls foul of the UMD rule that you can't use images from a kids show. And as it uses the same name, any discussion can only be permitted if EVERY TIME anyone mentions the name they say "the reboot, not the original" to avoid confusion. At least that's how the rules cited in this thread would logically be applied. So if MM still decides it's banned he would have good reason, from a practicality viewpoint if nothing else. Not forgetting that there is still the problem of kids searching for the original kids show being directed to a porn site, because the name is the same as the reboot.

It's a shame that saying "the rules are really simple" never makes things simpler - I'm sure even my suggestions would spark arguments eventually, because all rules have grey areas. Ultimately I'm happy to let MM decide - remember, we have no skin in the game other than trying to win an argument, but his livelihood is at stake if he gets it wrong.

For those interested, this is the only thing I can find from Master Card on the changes. Technically, according to the changes, as long as the identities of people are known, there is no issue. Adults pieing adults on a TV show where no kids are shown does not violate the policies no matter what the name of the show is.

https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting-our-network-protecting-you-preventing-illegal-adult-content-on-our-network/

Noted, but the thing we're looking at here isn't whether kids watch something, but whether it was made specifically for kids, which is a different thing.

Btw thanks for getting the name right, while it doesn't bother me I'm always amused by how many people change it to "Dungeon Master". One of those odd quirks.


Those are the changed rules for actual uploaded adult content, they're what forced PornHub to nuke all content from unverified users, and why before you can upload anything naked or explicit here you have to first verify your account by uploading ID.

Also bear in mind that UMD works through billers who use the MC and Visa networks, as opposed to dealing directly with the card associations. Those billers will have their own sets of rules, written by their lawyers, expanded from the core ones that MC/Visa set. And then MM has to interpret those biller rules to fit his specific community and business model here, which I gather he's done in consultation with Epoch, and possibly others.

The rules we currently have are the result of that consultative refinement process.

I'm not aware of MIW I my have to check them out. Be warned I'm a music snob so if it doesn't live up to something from the late 60s till around 2008 I usually tune it out.

I couldn't agree more and honestly, while I doubt it would take off, I think that is a brilliant idea! Like, I have a bit of a head start because I been in the arts and entertainment industry for a minute. I been doing production and photo for over 10 years and music for 3 times that amount. I truly love the arts! It's my outlet. It's my escape valve. Bad day? Write or compose some music. Frustrated? Draw some sketches or write. Feeling inspired? Go outside and shoot.

As a result, I have had the ability and honor to work alongside some amazing and creative minds who could point me "due north" and give guidance on all these things. I had mentors. HELL, I still do! I am taking another lighting and shot list workshop next month. LOL The average lurker or regular who suddenly wants to get into this doesn't have anyone to learn from or emulate except for other producers here before them and while I see where that can be an asset, I also see it working against us as well.

For instance to your point: I will shoot in a bathroom under the right conditions. How is the space? Is it clean or does it look like a shithole? Is it a beautiful master bath with lovely tile walls that will not absolutely destroy your shot? How's the ambient light? Does it have natural sunlight? Is there room for lighting or a bounce? Where are my angles at that will bring out and enhance the subject? These are all the questions I'm asking myself when reviewing a space. Yes. It is harder, but the result is SO much better when you plan ahead

I guess the problems are a couple of things.

One, we did get to the bottom of it despite a lot of hemming and hawing from some people, but ultimately at the end of the day this place is what it is, which is a commercial business that is here to generate revenue, primarily from credit card sales and nothing is more important than that.

I do wish some people would have just come out and said that from the start, rather than trying to pretend people who are not disgusting peedophiles were "into children" or some of the other horrible sleezy things they said about people without apologizing for. If the first response out of the gate had been: "This place is here to make money. We have to make our credit card masters happy and anything even slightly objectionable that could get in the way of that is 100% prohibited."

I mean, we got to this eventually anyway, if that had simply been the opening salvo we could have avoided unpleasantness and, frankly, some people looking like dishonest people who should not be trusted as they squirmed around trying to make excuses or personal attacks to justify why the anti-PoR rule is in effect.

So that all out of the way leads to problem #2, which is: While the UMD of today is a 100% commercial pornhub, that was not always the case. In fact, going back to the early years - quite the opposite. It's been a slow transformation, for some of us an ugly one at that, but it started something around 20 years ago with people just putting random links to anything from anywhere on the internet, often with children, with nary a peep of complaint from anyone until one user years later started to question this "everything" policy in light of a Yahoo Group run by a lycra wearing weirdo who loved seeing little boys gunged.

... and some of the transformation was quite welcome. I don't think anyone here and now wants to go back to the Wild West UMD where people like Marty Penn were welcome. No thank you.

However, it's now become very unfriendly to a lot of mainstream material, regardless of what people who started out this conversation lying will have you now believe, and there is no reason to think things won't "evolve" even further from here on out to make it even MORE about credit card taking XXX productions, with even more "moderation" when it comes to any and all things mainstream.

Right now the flimsy excuse was about a show that isn't aired for children being off-limits because it shares the same format as a show from 34 years ago or that 10 years ago it might have teams of people who might have been under 18. With lines like that being drawn, it's not a stretch that at some point this forum will cater more and more to only Pay For material and less and less to anything mainstream...

... Which begs the question: Maybe now more than ever a new forum is needed to pick up the slack that has been lost here?

I think you are not drawing an accurate conclusion about mainstream clips. There are many recent posts about mainstream clips since this thread started. Hell there is one going on in wetlook about a movie from the 30s. It might be that our definitions of mainstream media are different. To me anything that was produced for viewing either on TV or in Movies is mainstream. Operating under that definition there are plenty of conversations allowed. Your complaint seems to be about 1 show specifically. If I am missing your definition, please let me know.

Yes I agree some of the answers about things could have been more to the point without attacking. But that seems to be what happens in some situations when discussing rules but not all. I am not sure what triggers this response, but it is a tactic I have seen deployed on this site a few times. I don't see that changing unfortunately, so it comes down to whether it is worth it to stay here and use the forums within the confines of the sand box we have, or go play somewhere else. There have been a few ideas tossed out, but it seems like no one has the ambition or the desire to start another forum or move to another site. So we choose to play in this sandbox and abide by the rules put forth.

Some people really want to help build up the community by discussing what can be made better. Some people just want to beat you up and tell you you suck, and win some sort of amorphous argument. I don't see a reason why this had to be so adversarial. If you think that certain programs should be allowed to be linked or discussed, or that a rule is unclear, then let's discuss that and get it over with. If you have no apparent objective other than to tear us apart and "win" then you're not really trying to help.

The official rule is simply "no children's programming" because that is the ground-level concept that we should use to crystalize actual rules and expectations. It is the "why" that should help us work together to get to the "what." That's how a thoughtful community grows from the inside out instead of top-down.

If you disagree with the rules or think they're unclear, or if you think we are banning shows that shouldn't be banned, then we can talk about that. But if you're just here to be mean and nasty, or to sow dissension, or to deliberately confuse our community by conflating "mainstream" with "made for children," then that is disingenuous, dangerous, and causes real long-term issues on our backend with people confused about what they can submit. Please don't do it.

A word on how we handle forbidden subjects: UMD does not officially have any banned keywords or phrases. I think they are ineffective because they would just be sitting in a list somewhere on the TOS. We can't count on people to study and memorize a whole list of banned words and phrases, much less remember them all when posting; Plus, we don't want to kill a possible legitimate discussion about that term. We do have internal lists of flag terms, but the way we "enforce" them is to look at anything you've just submitted, and if one of the words is found, we bring the form back with a checkbox to confirm that you are not really talking about, for example, poop, just because you said you're pooped. I'll even have to click the box just to submit this post. This lets us remind you of the rule (and the spirit of the rule) in realtime without forcing you to memorize some list. Way more effective, requires less moderation and resentment, plus gives you benefit of the doubt as an adult who can make decisions.

To recap, we still allow mainstream finds but we have to remove anything that seems made for kids, for reasons that have been explained for years now. We can and should debate about which shows are considered kid's shows and where to draw the line, but please don't gaslight our community about the rule itself. It's necessary to keep us safe and legit on so many levels.

So here is my question because it never got answered.

This argument all seems to revolve around a show that simply shares the format as a show aimed at kids and even states in the wiki page that it changed its format. Passa ou Repassa And its wiki page definitely verifies that in the 6th phase, it is now an installment of Domingo Legal and even in the 2022 season, there was no audience in accordance to COVID guidelines at the time. It also features former cast members of Big Brother and The Farm. This definitely points to a drastic shift in its intended audience.

So where are we in terms of situations such as this?

What we ultimately consider a kid's show is necessarily subjective and we should debate about what is allowed, so thank you for asking this. I've never really watched Passa, but community reports over the years have informed me that it's intended for kids, so that's why it's on the list.

Looking through deleted posts over the years, we've had to remove Youtube clips from the show featuring actual 17 year olds (and probably under) getting messy. If it's a show meant for all ages then links and discussion should not be banned... and this probably is an all-ages show. But the fact that people would mistakenly post minors actually getting messy on the show is a dealbreaker for me.

So why not make it simple: You can make it to where a post mentioning that show flags an instance where you need to check a box to proceed. Why not simply modify the script to redirect for moderator approval? If the show comes up, it won't post until it is reviewed and confirmed that it is in fact, the Domingo Legal version of the show. If you want to be extra vigilant, you can put in the condition that the poster needs to post the video air date Season and episode number so you guys aren't doing all the footwork. You just need to verify

Make sense?

Edit: Obviously this will be at the cost of concessions from the poster that they are posting under understanding that their post will not clear until it is vetted by management, Whether that takes a day, a week or month.

The problem with that is there doesn't seem to be a definitive episode list anywhere stating who took part in each one to check against, plus, is the new version *exclusively* adult-only, or does it still sometimes feature teams of younger people?

One of the aims of the policy is that UMD doesn't send search traffic to sites/content for klds. And PoR was originally a kids show, so anyone doing searches on it is as likely to find the kids version as the adult one. It's unfortunate that they kept the name, in other examples when someone does an adult spin-off of a kids show, they used a different name - e.g. TISWAS and OTT. Also, while I know the Wikipedia article says the 6th phase sometimes features the cast of soaps or reality shows, does it exclusively feature those, or are those "specials" with a celebrity cast but the regular episodes are still school-based? There's still the comment about "keeping the original format." This isn't about what anyone here is interested in - it's taken as read that all of us are only interested in viewing adults. It's to do with whether younger people ever still appear on it.

Looking further into the Wikipedia article, some seasons of the original version featured elementary school children, so not even teenagers where age might be ambiguous. Speaking entirely personally, I think discussions of something that, when searched for, may well produce images or videos of kids under 13 taking part in a messy gameshow, should not be allowed here. The problem isn't the actual wammers who are only interested in the all-adult versions, the problem is the impression given to outsiders by allowing such discussions.


https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passa_ou_Repassa#Fatos_sobre_o_programa

Also if you google "IMDB Passa ou Repassa" you exclusively get details of the original 1987 - 2000 version of the show, featuring schoolkids - see attached screenshot. So an outsider or compliance checker coming here, seeing discussions about PoR, and then googling to see what it's about, may assume the participants are discussing a show where kids get messy, regardless of which exact episode is actually being discussed.

On the more general question raised previously about whether mainstream content was being suppressed in favour of paid-for content, in the time this thread has been running there have been quite a few posts of mainstream content, some in the Vintage WAM group, some in the Messy forum, some in the Wetlook forum, pretty much all of which have been allowed to stay. In addition to those, there have been *lots* of free pics added by multiple users in various galleries, mostly male but some female too, plus all the AI WAM (almost all female) that's been created - not everyone's cup of tea but still lots of free content for those who do like it. Bear in mind every hosted image is potentially extra bandwidth cost for MM, so if there was really a conspiracy to push people to paid-for, then all that free content would be rather more of a problem than links to YouTube copies of TV shows.

Funny, in 2019 DM1 was commenting in a thread about a remake of CHILDREN'S SHOW Home Alone...

Guess times have changed? No more musing about remaking childrens show ala The Wild Messy Wenches of Langstonedale Chase, I guess.

The original of that post, including the quote of the post above it which I was responding to, is here:

https://umd.net/forums/home-alone-reboot#postid_706863

The much-missed Potatoman-J had said "Dear God No! Make something new!" - railing against Hollywood's endless remaking and rebooting of old stories and films. I was agreeing with him, no more reboots, create new stories instead, and jokingly suggesting one they could create.

And yes, times, and rules, change. The big change in UMD rules happened 2 years later, in 2021, after Mastercard brought the hammer down on PornHub, and then created the new rules for processing payments on adult content sites.

So if we are applying your logic in this scenario, the simple mention of Home Alone and messy scenarios (starring a child actor at the time of production) and lack of context in what is being discussed should mean, past or present it needs to be nuked, right? This is the problem I see. Unless you are being consistent with the implementation of the new rules, people are going to continue to have a fuss about this matter. In the same spirit of this matter, someone not aware (or just decided to skim ToS) who sees this might think it's perfectly ok to post a forbidden topic. Afterall, they were talking about Home Alone here, right? See the issue here?

I doubt there is a statute of limitations in the eyes of these "optics" we wish to preserve so my question is this: Has there been any attempt or attempts planned on retroactively removing posts that could be problematic in the full history of this site? If so, we clearly missed a few. If not, think maybe we should?

Not trying to be provocative here, mind you but this is kinda the thing that need to be thought of when implementing policy

I have wondered about this situation myself. I don't like the idea of applying TOS retroactively because you lose the evolution of things. However, with the 2023 rules applied the "Home Alone" thread would not have been allowed to thrive. It is a depressing reminder of what used to be. I am sure it would be a massive undertaking, a happy medium could be to move threads like that to a TOS section that clearly marks the thread similar to the whole erasing history bad but acknowledging that they are now wrong good. The threads do auto lock so you can't participate any more in the conversation which is a good thing. Or maybe have an archive section of the forum that posts are auto moved to after a year when you can no longer reply to them. There are some threads and discussions that need to be available for reference purposes, trying to figure that out can also be a thing. I am not sure how many times I have had to reference things like what happened to model X or store Y. People come and go and sometimes things disappear while they are gone, so having that available is a nice thing.

Something I would like to request is a change log for the TOS going forward. So it can be clearly referenced when a rule changed and what lead to the change. Or when a rule was added and why. I think it would help people to read these things when they have questions about why something was allowed previously but not now.

I think at the time it passed because it wasn't about the actual movies, but a theoretical remake, and the discussion then went to "no more remakes" rather than the OP's subject. In theory at least you could remake HA with a left behind super intelligent pet (or these days, an AI robot) as the main character. TBH Hollywood is probably already planning a cute robot version, no main actor to pay. However possibly the thread should be nuked, will flag it for a decision.


I do see your point, as far as I know, no retroactive deletes other than in response to flags. Everything is archived off after just under ten years - the oldest post in the Messy forum at the moment is from the spring of 2014, and was MM asking for "goofy phrases" to use on the top banner. I remember posting to that thread, weird to think it was nine years ago! So eventually anything problematic or that was missed at the time will disappear from view.