Thanks for that clarification and for the props. We keep that detachment as intact as possible by requiring as little verification info as possible. No info gets exposed about you except what you post, so the level of public anonymity is up to you. There's just no way to legitimately host sexual stuff anymore without asking for some ID. If you don't think twice about handing your ID over to some random bar bouncer or anywhere that scans it (not even promising any sort of privacy or secure handling at all), then I'd say give UMD a chance

^^^This!

According to this thread you or your mods have taken down mainstream clips that feature 100% adults with not nary a child in sight just because of the time of day it aired. You know what else used to air on daytime weekend TV: infomercials. Should we be worried about posting clips from some (hypothetical) beauty product infomercial that features a model in a shower if on another channel a legitimate kids show aired at the same time?

Oh! I remember professional wrestling airing in the kids time slots back in the day too. RIP a lot of foundational adult-based WAM memories.

I'm not trying to have a protracted argument on this point because I'm aware of the "blame the CC companies" gambit and because it's very embarrassing for everyone involved to see you spam the word "kiddie" to handwave away inconvenient holes in your moderation logic. I'll be charitable and assume that you're overcorrecting to keep the site up--which is why I also implore people to use YouTube as a better source for mainstream WAM than this joint (just don't be a creep in the comments).

But...one day I hope you let your guard down and pause Credit Card Hostage Mode for a moment if only to remind us that you know this distinction of "mainstream vs. kiddie" is nonsense. Let us know that there's still a reasonable person in there.


There are years of mass confusion, "amendments" to rules and dodgy definitions of contraband that beg to differ. Whether it's your intention or not, I'm sorry to say that I'm not the only one unclear about the moderation rules around here. I almost wish it were a conspiracy because a conspiracy would make more sense.


I'm not asking anyone to restrict anything. I was just saying that the proliferation of trash is what has diminished the UMD experience for me over the years. And seeing the bang-up job being done moderating mainstream content, I would actually prefer the low-effort crap to continue being pushed without restriction because at least then there's a chance something good might come out of it.


I wouldn't do that if they didn't treat words like "Patreon" and "OnlyFans" like alien gibberish. Now I'm not saying you're the mastermind behind this unfortunate piece of UMD culture, but regardless, this is how a lot of people think of the place. But at the end of the day, the only people they're screwing over are themselves.


Here's an example: https://umd.net/forums/how-to-create-a-website-that-accepts-pay Maybe it's one mod going rogue, but since he's a representative of the community, one would reasonably believe that the party line is: "Just open up a store on the UMD. Don't worry about alternatives, just open up a store on the UMD." Also the number of times people have reached out to ask me to just sell my stuff on UMD is fucking annoying, but again not your fault. You should actually take credit for this masterstroke of branding.

But the bottom line is words and actions aren't adding up here. Politician MM says "Mainstream is allowed," moderator actions say "A new chunk of of mainstream WAM is banned and you're a pedophile if you disagree." Politician MM says "We love alternate WAM sources--that link that nobody uses is right there." Moderator actions say "Alternate WAM sources are stupid, why even bother?" Be consistent. Or at least honest.

Oh, BTW, the little checkbox that I now have to click because I used the P-word is annoying, pointless, and easily circumvented. But that's the least of this place's problems right now.

I absolutely echo this! Some of the youtube lists that show up have reminded me of clips I had forgotten about and in some cases, clips that I had lost links for.

To be fair, and this is by no way excusing the laziness behind just saying "Open up a store here", but you would be surprised how many on here have not the first clue in how to design (Effectively and decently), Set up merchant services, driving traffic to, or even setting up and updating a clip store. Most people will just answer with the best answer they know or understand. I will emphasize the power in learning this skill, however if this is something someone wants to learn to do full-time.

For instance, in our near future, we may not be on C4S or Gumroad much longer. I can't say for sure. It was my intention to make our site a destination location for the material we shoot and now that we discovered a payment processor with great terms, it's looking more viable which means I can deliver better pricing, update on my own terms (without C4S barking about cranking out videos to remain "relevant"), take in and bill for custom orders directly through our website (Globally) and market the website effectively vs trying to drive traffic to 5-6 different locations that I have no control over.

Everyone's business model is different though. Some answers are as simple as "Set up shop here" and some are a bit more complex than that. The thing I do agree with you on is people should be asking what end goals is that individual looking to accomplish? If it's to just share some phone-web videos or periodic WAM sessions for some coin, then yeah, here makes perfect sense. No one's production journey is going to be the same nor should it. That's where the excitement is

Well, most of the women I work with already understand general compliance requirements of these larger sites like IWC, Manyvids, Onlyfans and C4S as they are mostly already on these sites and they all require similar information. Those who don't know are made aware and is stated in their release paperwork we do before each shoot. Everything we do is in the spirit of transparency so they can make an informed decision from there. We had only one model who backed out as a result of their policies, and that is totally fine! That's why we inform them!

I think the premise and overall understanding is they need to have all records on file as they do have studios on there who shoot and sell sexually explicit material. In the very same manner as Pornhub, where the entire site was under scrutiny for one producer, the same fate I guess is the concern of C4S management, so they want to verify all models are both consenting and of age to be shown on their site. C4S has become a rather conglomerate in and of itself, and as a result has become every bit as large as a target as Pornhub and it's affiliates.

Whether this is in accordance to MasterCard or what not, who knows but I wager that it is a factor. In any event, the aftermath of the Pornhub and MasterCard debacle has forced many sites (this one included) to preemptively respond to potentially stiffer policies surrounding adult entertainment.

I'll continue this conversation because there must be no confusion about why we cannot link to content made for kids. We've had this whole conversation before, almost verbatim, and I'm sure we'll have it again in the future.


We have to determine if it's a kid's show somehow, and if we err on the side of caution, then so be it. We're not familiar with every international show, and if we decide it's a kid's show then we'll remove it to be safe.


It's not a gambit. I work back and forth with our billing companies constantly from a development as well as compliance standpoint. That whole Pornhub / Mastercard / Visa thing was huge, one of the specific rules was "The Merchant must not market the content of its website or permit content search terms to give the impression that the content contains child exploitation materials..." This was the reason for the rule about the Double Dare t-shirts and linking to anything meant for kids.
Also, a few years back, Youtube started restricting traffic from certain types of sites for this very reason. They are watching. Everybody is watching. Why take the risk?


Yes, I am erring on the side of caution and that's always been the case. We are always given these vague rules yet risk being shut down for infringement, which is insane. When you have a site where everybody can randomly post stuff, and that site is based on a fetish embedded into us as kids, it becomes almost impossible to navigate. Especially when you have someone on here pushing conspiracy theories that ALL of this is just to boost store sales!? I can think of 100 better ways to do that than to ban on linking to kiddie content.



I take the conflation of those terms as deliberately misleading, and it was the entire point of neverending threads that came before this one. Mainstream content is non-amateur content produced for TV or the movies or whatever. There is plenty of it to enjoy that's not made for kids.



If you're not clear on a rule, just ask. It is not OK to just accuse people of things if you don't understand them first.


This site is 100% on-topic from the forum posts to the ads to the store to the directory. I think it's messed up to trash fellow wam producers because you can't link out to kiddie content.


Just beating up on the site does not make your point any more valid that we should be able to link to content made for children.


That's pearl clutching? Responding to a person asking where they can create a wam store and suggesting UMD stores? Let me know if you can find a better example for your point.


Mainstream wam was never banned. Content meant for children is banned. I think people who deliberately conflate mainstream with child content like this are dangerous. The only stuff we can't allow is content made for children. I'm sorry we can't cater to all tastes here.


This would be the first time in my life I've ever been called a politician! We are consistent with not linking to content made for children. We don't just kill links because they are alternative wam sources. My entire directory is for alternate wam sources, including everybody's clips4sale pages, onlyfans, or whatever. So that doesn't make much sense


I have a duty to protect the existence of this site, not just for me, but for the many producers here as well as visitors who I am loyal to. Even with that, UMD has no keyword bans at all. You can say Paypal. I just have a checkbox that asks you to confirm that you're not posting about actually selling through Paypal because publishing that content causes UMD to be complicit in sales that go against their terms. Even with that, I still let you post the word but just ask that you confirm. Would have been easier to just ban the word but I don't work like that. I don't think a confirmation box is too much to ask given its purpose plus the fact that the alternative is to have actual keyword ban lists. Before saying it's pointless, why not be curious about why it exists? Same goes for moderation rules. Let's all get on the same page about this stuff!

Let's see how the leader of this place and defender of responsible sensibilities responded!




Embarrassing.

Maybe if you were as quick to respond to proven and admitted sex offenders as you are to accuse people who criticize this site of wanting kiddie content you wouldn't have lost loyal contributors last October.

To the OP and those who care about the original point of this thread: if you think this forum kinda sucks nowadays, it's because the celebration of WAM of all legal flavors has been crushed under the pressure of capitalism and cynical distrust of anything that might be sexually gratifying. The qualities that made this community a godsend back in the day:

*Acknowledgment of the shows and movies that brought us here
*Crowdsourced sharing of adult-based WAM content from all over the world
*Producers who cared about the nuances of WAM, even if they weren't technically proficient yet
*Oxygen given to WAM that isn't just porn with a dollop of whipped cream
*Moderators who cared more about removing actual offenders than spouting the company line

Yeah, they're all gone or on their way out. Because when you decide to turn your kink-based community into a cash cow, you need to step aside and let the companies that bring you the cash write the rules. And those companies would just as soon turn your home away from home into another XXX store with a token message board because they at least know how to regulate those. Don't let the cutesy puns and "splatter" icons fool you. The UMD is now Pornhub with a little bit of slime. And that sucks.

I do like how you get the very political messaging from Messmaster, also late to the table as I'm sure he weighed his words very carefully. Meanwhile, another representative, DM1, was Johnny on the Spot quick to reply to strongly *and repeatedly* insinuate the purpose of this criticism was somehow to argue for allowing videos with children in them... even when I think about three times I had to stop and directly state that was absolutely NOT the case in any way, shape or form.

I'd say that and repeat I was only objecting to the removal of videos with exclusively 100% adults and his reply would be sure to re-mention, "Sorry the UMD won't have children in their videos! Nope nope nope!" as if I'd been wanting that somehow.

Classic good cop bad cop, I guess.

I'm not sure if I offended you in the past, or what your beef is with me. I've answered all questions honestly and thoroughly, at least I thought. We just can't bring heat on this site for being a springboard for conversations and links about kid's content. The principle could not be any clearer, though application and moderation of the principle are necessarily subjective. We as a community are dealing with it because we ourselves are always being handed down vague rules. But you're insisting that there are ulterior motives and I'm not sure where that comes from.


It took 2 or 3 days to remove a couple of people arguing in this forum while a lot was going down, and some people weaponized this fact against UMD itself. You're still doing it now. We don't have a policy of allowing ignorant people to stay here like Twitter does.


No, we're defending against false information given about our motives and moderation policies. If you want to see mainstream content, come here. If you want to see content that was expressly made for children, not only should you not be here, but you should stop doubling down on trying to make it available here. No amount of attacks on me or this community will change that. We have to go beyond just legal. We also have to be ethical.



*We definitely allow deep conversation about what got us here, and you can even mention the show names you saw as a kid. You just can't go into lascivious detail about individual scenes or actors.
*We have tons of producers who do nuanced wam. I don't produce material so if you want to see more of something, ask around.
*Dollops of whipped cream were mostly want the original UMD was. I allow minimal wam stuff along with crazy wam stuff. It's all here for you to choose from. So we have all the "oxygen" needed, I think. If you don't think so, define what you mean by oxygen
*Our mods and community at large constantly flag content and people, and we are constantly taking action in the background all day every day. We don't bother the front-end with it because you came to see wam. If you have curiosity as to how things really work, you can always ask instead of assuming the worst. If they suggest UMD to a person asking where to put a store, that's not towing the company line. That's a stretch.


The companies that bring us the cash (our biller) has its own rules that it has to comply with, and by extension we must comply as well. If we don't, we simply have no billing and UMD wont' exist for more than 2 weeks. I have a lot of producers who rely on UMD. I'm not jeopardizing billing and the entire site so that you can link to children's shows, as that's pretty much all that's banned and what this entire conversation is about.


So if we allow you to link to kid's stuff, we wouldn't be Pornhub anymore? I don't get the logic, but you do you.

Messmaster in my experience has always been fair (not always perfect but hes human).

In general, though I understand why, I do not like the way many things are being handled. I feel this is mostly out of an abundance of caution.

I have a handful of times reported a thread that I believe was overzealously deleted, and upon review most of them were reinstated. Several were just deleted on the reasoning that it was "innocent nonfetish content" which so far isnt against the rules.

I do cringe about deleting animated content where the subjects "look too young" even when the source material says they are of legal age. I understand why but I have had plenty of friends of legal ahlge who were occasionally assumed to be minors in public.

I do.have to say there is an unquantifiable feeling that mainstream content is being subtly (and overtly) denigratiled by prominent users. They etend to pop into many mainsteam posts and chide us for enjoying mainstream content when wam producers exist. They also make sure to imply that those who like mainstream content are basically predators. Then of course they say that we are too cheap to buy produced material or customs (not true in my case, I have made probablu hundreds of prodcuer purchases).


I dont understand this part of your argument. I understand (not necessarily agree with) the rest.

I do try to choose my words carefully, lest they get misrepresented for the sake of somebody's argument. I've been in a deep programming binge for months now, with the new template / nav, people not getting access with the new password system, and now Epoch not sending auths (plus still running the site itself). I am often late in responding to these threads and some flags and I apologise for that.


Let's just put to rest that anybody here wants to see actual kids get messy. I never thought that was the case, and if it seems that one of us accused you of that, I apologize for that.

The issue at stake is that some people disagree that content with 100% adults should ever be removed just because it was from a kid's show. If you disagree with this rule then that is fine, but it is unnecessary for one to drum up whole conspiracy theories, or to pad out your disappointment with a whole "UMD sucks now" thing when your original argument did not get enough traction.

You keep saying that, but at no point did I say or suggest any such thing. I completely understand that what you're objecting to is the comparatively newer rule that anything from kids-TV is banned, even if there are only adults on screen, and that's what I've been responding to.

Both MM and I have explained the reasons why that rule now exists, MM has explained it in great detail in his posts above. And yes, it means stuff that would have been OK a decade ago now is now banned. The world changes, we have to change with it. That's just life.

There's a post in the messy forum just now about a Latin American pie game show. When I saw it this morning, I googled the show's name, judging by the IMDB entry it's all-adult and not a kids show. So it's been left in place and is getting comments. If someone more knowlegable proves otherwise it'll be removed, but from what checks I could do it's OK. You posted info about pies in Big Brother. That's not a kids show, no kids are involved, so it also gets to stay. There's no conspiracy against mainstream WAM. Just nothing featuring, or made-for, kids. It's that simple.

I appreciate the way you understand this. Nobody likes having their post removed, but it really is out of an overabundance of caution. It's why there's still a UMD.


Looking through your history, you posted some content featuring a 17 year-old. The mod did the research and found that this was her age at the time of filming. Another post of yours that was deleted featured an ambush-style wamming which we don't allow. All of this is explained to you in your notification that you get, but please inbox me if you still feel they were wrongly removed. As always I'll listen, and if it makes sense I'll reinstate the post.


We know some people appear younger than their age and we try to take that into consideration when it comes to pics of real people. But for animation, the depiction of kids can resonate in the wrong way with certain people. We know you're cool, but and we can't be attracting those people! So that's why content with characters that look like little kids can't be here, even if illustrated. To some people it's a nod-wink to a certain type of fantasy.


Why don't you go ahead and flag posts like that. We don't allow bullying or belittling here like other platforms do. I don't remember anyone being spoken to about liking mainstream content--only mainstream content that's for kids.

Most have no clue about how much thinking and note-taking goes into every moderation move and running this site, because we're not all up in their face about it. Most of the activity does not bubble up to the surface and that's deliberate. People come here to see wam. Doesn't mean we're always right, but man these off-base accusations do really hurt. There is plenty of stuff to choose from that I DO mess up, so no need to make up even more.

Oh sorry I dont mean my own post that got removed. I was asking about a scene that I did not totally remember and I didnt know that the subject was underage. I agree with the removal! (Btw I did not post the clip. I was asking about it from a position of ignorance.)

I am PMing you about my other post with the ambush. I don't remember that at all.

I was more talking about posts of others that were removed. Most of the time I reported those, they were reinstated (system working).


I will do so! I just assumed that, as long as they were opinions without direct accusations, couched carefully to imply but not accuse, they were okay.

I'm just amazed that after all these years and all the bullshit and drama thrown at him, MM still keeps this place running. Props for that!

It's the casual and uncritical categorizing of something as a "kids show" based on the time of day it airs instead of, you know, the content of the show without anyone in power stopping to think, "Hmmm, a reasonable person may take issue with that."

I know you don't like conspiracy theories, but at this point you should embrace them because taken at face value, this makes you, MM and DM1, appear so bereft of critical thinking skills that you honestly believe the time of day a show airs makes something a "kids show." And that's an extremely unflattering look.

Here. To show that I'm not completely hostile, I'm going to offer some free advice. When you have a continuing problem of users not understanding why the hell your policies are the way they are, try some self-aware acknowledgement of the apparent arbitrary nature of it, like so:

"Yeah, the credit cards want us to be strict about kids content, so we need to define it by the time of day it air instead of the actual content or the people who appear in it. I know it doesn't make practical sense, but he who pays the piper, you know..."

If you need to, keep that response handy to copy and paste for people who didn't notice the change when it originally happened. What you don't do is repeatedly tell anyone who objects that they're trying to watch "kiddie" content ad nauseum because it makes you look like you're putting up a firewall of defensive and baseless accusations against critics instead of being honest with people. A.k.a. scumbag behavior.

People will tolerate nonsense rules all day if there's a general air of understanding that the rules are nonsense and those who question them aren't criminals for doing so. It's called basic empathy and it's amazing that you, after years of public outcry and numerous numerous calls to help us make sense of this, are still fumbling the bag this poorly.

Those folks would have been sent a private notification as well, explaining the removal. We leave a public note on deleted posts (had to add that feature because of conspiracy theories people were pushing every time something was deleted), but it's still not the full story. Some of them even appeal just like you did, and their post gets put back. If you have a question about ANY removal--not just yours--you can ask me publicly or privately.


You can contact me about anything you're not comfortable with. Sometimes a gut feeling really is indicative to some wider nuanced problem that should be thought through.


It's not casual. A lot of time and thought and note-taking goes into this stuff and we make the best decision we can make. We are completely open about all the criteria we use and the history behind their existence. Please don't be dismissive of the entire process because you don't like its outcome.


I don't believe that was the only criteria, and stripping the nuance off of someone else's point isn't a good look either. If we are not familiar with the show or its actors and have to look it up, we'll make the best decision we can. All you have to do if you disagree is start up a discussion. Which shows do you believe I should allow on here that are not currently allowed? All I can do is agree or disagree with you.



Actually it's the disinformation campaigns that confuse people, which is why I keep saying it's dangerous to conflate "mainstream" with "content made for children." There is a real effect on users who come out of reading these things even more confused, which is why I keep replying to keep the record straight.

The only arbitrary or subjective part of the rule, it seems to me, is exactly which shows are banned. Well then let's have a discussion about that! Just accusing use of being inconsistent doesn't accomplish anything.


How would you define kid's content? To make it simple, I define it as anything made for kids, and then we just have to research the target audience. It's an easy guiding principle [almost] anybody can understand.

Yes or no: Do you suggest that we start allowing links to content made for children if it's only adults who appear in the clip? Let's talk about the actual policy change you're wishing for.


I do that because that's the only least common denominator left. We allow mainstream content already, but you're proselytizing a "different" kind of mainstream content, and the only difference that I can see is that it's made for kids. Nobody, including, you is advocating to see any kids, but you're advocating for the show itself to be allowed . We disagree with for the many reasons we explained, hence our policy.


Now I'm a politician and a scumbag. I'm taking time out from running this site to engage with you personally, publicly, honestly, and thoroughly. We've explained our reasons for the rule 16 million ways but if you refuse all of them, I've done all I can do.

I can't believe you would call what the mods or MM doing scumbag behavior

Scumbag behavior would have been to ignore this thread or delete it.
Scumbag behavior would be to delete posts without giving it a reason.

I can understand your point without all of the extra negative language you are using. The hostile language that you are using makes your argument weaker, and the point you are trying to make gets lost. You are just drawing attention to the insults that you are making and not the point that you are trying to make.

Absolutely. I have "appealed" the removal of others posts and they usually have gotten reinstated.

I do not recall appealong my own posts, especially not the underage one.

Again I would like to clarify FOR OTHERS that I did NOT post underage content in the sense of a link, clip, video, or picture. I asked a question seeking a clip I partially remembered, and I was fairly certain the subject was an adult. As soon as more info came out that person was not an adult and the thread was deleted, I agreed with the decision.

I feel the way my post in this thread was responded to carried the implication that I was complaining against having genuine underage content removed. I categorically am not.

Nor am I supporting "TheSpecialist"'s accusations or thesis.

I would honestly rather him be evasive and nuke the whole thread instead of accusing me of advocating for "kiddie" content just because I find the reasoning behind a policy flimsy. That's a serious charge he's lobbing, repeatedly and thoughtlessly, to shut down valid criticism. And I have to think that an adult who has been in this space as long as MM has knows damn well the difference between someone pushing for "kiddie" content and someone questioning the reasoning of a policy. But maybe I'm again giving him too much credit.


The rules of civility flew out the window when he tacitly accused someone who wants to see videos of adults being slimed by adults in a studio full of adults of being a pedo.

Specialist, can you explain what you mean here?

You're right, I should have taken more care in my response to make that clear. Nobody really knew the actress's age at the time of filming until a mod looked it up. Nothing against you, but I was explaining the reason for your posts' deletion


I'm looking for a perspective where the least common denominator *isn't* kid content. We keep saying we know you're not a pedo, but what you're advocating will potentially appeal to pedos out there, hence our decision to avoid all that.

If you didn't want us to start allowing links to content made for children, then why are you so hung up on the policy that prevents it?

We allow mainstream stuff but not stuff made for kids. So what more do you actually want from us?

I fail to see or understand how acting equally as hostile or vehement is the solution. I get emotions can run high, but even your first post on this thread had the tact of Mike Tyson's left hook.

If you have a movie like the Great Race, it is a family movie. Is that meant for kids, or is it meant for adults and where does that fall? 3 stooges shorts are shown on MeTV (classic TV) station in the states at all hours of the day. They were originally shorts and sometimes shown in a group of shorts mixed in with little rascals shorts. How do you tell the audience in these situations? I don't think that anyone is advocating to allow something like a Mr. Rogers pie fight scene. I think time of day is a bad measure because Jerry Springer which was all adults airs at various times of the day including the after school hours.

This is pretty much my posture. Time slot is irrelevant. Also, US time slots are a poor metric as even adult or mature themes will air on stations in other countries. To your point, Richard Bey comes to mind as well as other trash tv shows. Hell, There are stations that air Spongebob at 9-11pm, do those qualify as adult?

It's just not possible to lump programming by time slot and call that a fair metric. The questions really need to be:

-Are there kids in the scene at any point of the scene?
-Who IS the target audience?

Edit: the problem with this policy is with the PG-PG13 age range. For instance, Big Top Pee Wee features a brief part of a mud wrestling scene from Bert Rhine's Battling Beauties, an after dark production made for adults. Other TV and movie programs skirt the line as well. Majority of all professional wrestling scenes comes to mind and fall into this category.

How do these instances factor? The only solution is to catalog these on a case by case basis which means I see a lot of toe stepping because I doubt a handful of mods unfamiliar with some of this content is getting it 100% right the first go

You've answered your own question, it's a family movie - it wasn't made specifically for kids.

TBH very few movies are specifically for kids, and most of the ones that are, are animated, and/or feature a child cast, which would rule them out here anyway.

By and large, the "actual problem" is modern TV shows, where there are no kids on screen but the show was made specifically for a child (or mainly child) audience.


I'd say the Stooges were meant for a general audience, it was general comedy. Where something is shown years later on a classics station doesn't really matter. Channel 4 here showed lots of Harrold Lloyd films during children's time in the 80s, but in the 1920s, when they were made, they were meant for general cinema audiences of all ages.


I wasn't suggesting that when shown should be the only metric, just that it's one of many things that can indicate whether something is intended as a kids show or not. In fact the clearest example was in reverse, the telenovella someone mentioned - shown at 7pm, prime time. Means very unlikely to be meant for kids - though also probably won't have overt adult themes, so kids could still watch it, i.e. family entertainment. But not a kids show so any wam content featuring only adults would be fine.

Basically, when presented with a report that something might be inappropriate, or spotting something posted and wanting to check it, whichever mod sees it first needs to try and deduce whether it's OK or not. That means research. Is there a wikipedia page? IMDB? Show's own website (which may well require Google Translate to read)? Information provided as a comment by the person who flagged it, if its a flag? Existing knowlege of what is and isn't allowed? There are lots of things to be taken into account, and we only nuke things if we're fairly sure they break the rules. And anything someone is unsure about gets escalated to MM. And any delete can be undeleted by MM if it turns out we got it wrong.

As I said way back near the start of this thread, if anyone thinks somehing has been deleted that shouldn't have been, all they need to do is click "Report" on the deleted item (the Report link still works on deleted threads, deliberately so), select "Needs Attention", type in the box "I don't think this should have been deleted because (reason)", and submit the form. That'll show up (anonymously, even the mods can't see who submitted any given flag) on the admin page and MM will eventually get to it, though it may take a little while, depending on how busy he is a the time. But it will be seen and looked at.

Here's a perspective: There are no kids present! One would think that the most baseline criteria for categorizing something as pedo content is the presence of...children.

I'm "hung up" on the policy because it's based on a circular logic that purports that content is for pedos because the UMD bans it and the UMD only bans content that's for pedos. Also because these restrictions cascaded on each other over time and will almost certainly be tightened further in the near future. What I'm "defending" now didn't need to be "defended" last year and what we're taking for granted today will probably need to be "defended" next year. Does that sound like content that's objectively harmful or just content that may cause a legal/financial headache?

And the thing is I think everyone would understand a series of policies designed to avoid headaches. But you're hung up on framing this as a way to protect children when people can see through that spin because there are no kids present.

So, Mr. Defender of the Children, these policies were put into place within only the past few years, right? Does that mean that for the first 15+ years of your public WAM presence you gave full-throated support for content made for children that appeals to pedos? Is the only thing keeping you from being pro-pedo again the dicta of credit card companies?

Thank you very much for reducing me to some C-grade reddit troll tactics because you can't be honest and mature enough to just admit that the restrictions are for money, not for some newfound revelation that the mainstream content you built this site on "appeals to pedos." By the way, because I need to do your homework again: a honest man wouldn't start a question with "If you didn't want us to start allowing links to content made for children" because of the implied premise that I want links to content made for children (again, the circular logic that the content is for children because you only recently banned it). A man who isn't just trying to shut opposition up with terrible accusations would work harder to deal in facts.

See posts like this and this, where users who have been here long enough to know better seem shocked at the suggestion that there is WAM outside of the UMD. See the people who, whenever a producer shows up to promote their Patreon or their non-UMD store, tilt their little virtual heads in confusion and ask, "Why don't you just sell on the UMD store?" See the grown-ass adults I had to remind in this very thread that google exists.