Fearless_Leader wrote:

so anyone can complain about a troll on a troll site, push a button and get them banned or have their posts erased by getting butthurt on the front end of their threads

we will end up with hacked up threads with missing posts, with general confusion and frustration resulting. Who wants to read shit that has been censored, where every other comment is deleted and no context provided? Don't say "that won't happen" because it has happened before


Ban the sick fuck simulated child porno promoting pedophile wannabee and everything goes back to "normal" more or less

Here's how it works: I make the rules that abide with my principles and which require the least amount of effort from me. If someone is out to increase my unpaid workload, I will not suffer fools gladly. I will also adjust the rules such that my workload is kept to a stable amount (i.e. none). There will be a period of adjustment while this works itself out.

And no, I will not sell out my principles by banning Poet. Make of that what you will.

Stonewall wrote:

Shon,

How about a simpler approach to the problem: Instead of sweeping policy changes that seem (to me, at least) destined to create an endless storm of pettifogging lawyering and crybabies making demands and counter-demands for off-topic bans, I propose that you appoint five new Mods.

Pick five active members you think are level-headed people who aren't going to take a website or a their "authority" too seriously or too lightly, give them clear job descriptions and guidelines about when and why they should or should not take action, what they can and cannot do, give them the power to remove comments and images, make temp bans at their own discretion, and make perma-bans when 3 of the 5 agree on it. Then let them deal with trolls and idiots on a case-by-case basis.

I recommend VAVD, Nappybonesapart, TexanForever, Tiberius and Balls.

This cannot happen yet. There are far too many trolls and people who seek the downfall of this site. And I have to be the one to lay down the law for it to be legitimate. Once the trolls are gone, I will no doubt appoint some more mods.

shon wrote:

This cannot happen yet. There are far too many trolls and people who seek the downfall of this site. And I have to be the one to lay down the law for it to be legitimate. Once the trolls are gone, I will no doubt appoint some more mods.

Fair enough.

Bat2 wrote:


fuck off, Shonpoet.

Fair warning to everybody. Posting this kind of non-constructive garbage will not be tolerated in this thread going forward. Your comment will be removed and you will be banned. Post that shit in the Flames board where I will happily ignore it. If you can't contribute in a reasonable fashion, stay the fuck away.

geebart wrote:



My, you seem very privy to Pedo's persona legal dealings all of a sudden...

Actually, I'm not. I simply don't think they let pedophiles in jails have access to the internet or to continue to post such. I think it's a logical assumption, don't you?

lord_of_the_air wrote:


Regulated free speech is like simulated child porn,so very keen observation there.By confining "flames" to the flame section,the whole structure of this site is undermined.The concept is laughable.

Free speech is regulated. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can't barge into a funeral to protest the military. You can't hit someone who disagrees with you. What you're describing is anarchy.

There are certain cases where discussion posts may appear to be a flame. Take JLS for example. To call a FEMA trailer dwelling. government cheese eating asshat may, on first sight, appear to be a flame, when really its is simply a statement of fact. Caution must be taken.

shon wrote:

geebart wrote:



My, you seem very privy to Pedo's persona legal dealings all of a sudden...

Actually, I'm not. I simply don't think they let pedophiles in jails have access to the internet or to continue to post such. I think it's a logical assumption, don't you?

That's a bit of a logical jump there.... how do you know he's not under investigation? Maybe they feel as though his borderline behavior doesn't warrant a warrant, yet.

Also, speaking of "principles", I understand poopsie and frog posted basically cut, copy and past the same insult after every single post by pedo and nancy, however the banning of feathers, bizlah etc shows extreme partiality.

Last words on this subject, pedophilia is learned, not a born trait. If the cache of child simulated porn on this site is a pedo's dream come true and I could certainly see pushing borderline people to act on their urges. Given people's "gallery" there is no way, at the very least, the FBI doesn't have profile regarding him. The chapter 11 fraud he brags about is enough for that alone.

geebart wrote:


That's a bit of a logical jump there.... how do you know he's not under investigation? Maybe they feel as though his borderline behavior doesn't warrant a warrant, yet.

There is no borderline behavior. Either's it's legal or not. The feds can send you to the slammer for quite awhile for a single transgression. And no doubt they'd contact me to verify details about the alleged crime.

Also, speaking of "principles", I understand poopsie and frog posted basically cut, copy and past the same insult after every single post by pedo and nancy, however the banning of feathers, bizlah etc shows extreme partiality.

They did it after I banned poopsie and frog for the off-topic posting. They knew what they were doing.

Last words on this subject, pedophilia is learned, not a born trait. If the cache of child simulated porn on this site is a pedo's dream come true and I could certainly see pushing borderline people to act on their urges. Given people's "gallery" there is no way, at the very least, the FBI doesn't have profile regarding him. The chapter 11 fraud he brags about is enough for that alone.

No idea on whether that's environmental or genetic, but I'd have to guess genetic. There is no magic "bullet" that turns someone into a pedophile, and definitely no treatment for it afterwards. Once an offender, always an offender. Also, I highly doubt that pedophiles have to resort to FF for their fix. Those legal sites that MadPoet used must have tens of thousands of images. And my guess is even then, those sites are too tame for a real pedophile.

What section is this?

Section 5?


We need some rules.

As for "Simulated child porn" Frogryer remains as the only poster who has posted photos of an underage looking person engaging in a sex act.

18 usc2256 reads;

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 110 › § 2256prevnext..18 USC § 2256 - Definitions for chapter
.USC-prelimUS CodeNotesCurrencyThis preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. Nevertheless, the preliminary release should be useful to those seeking a more current version of the law. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code.

Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.

Current as of Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - up to Pub L 112-90
For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means— (i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person

It goes on for another page describing what didtribution etc means, but you get the general idea.

I haven't broken any laws.

TheMadPoet wrote:

As for "Simulated child porn" Frogryer remains as the only poster who has posted photos of an underage looking person engaging in a sex act.

18 usc2256 reads;

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 110 › § 2256prevnext..18 USC § 2256 - Definitions for chapter
.USC-prelimUS CodeNotesCurrencyThis preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. Nevertheless, the preliminary release should be useful to those seeking a more current version of the law. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code.

Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.

Current as of Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - up to Pub L 112-90
For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means— (i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person

It goes on for another page describing what didtribution etc means, but you get the general idea.

I haven't broken any laws.

I'm pretty sure some of the shit you posted could be construed to fall under section V. Lascivious being defined as " feeling or revealing an overt and often offensive sexual desire"

note; THE KEY TERM IS DESIRE; i.e. an actual act doesn't need to take place.

Comment #4072873 deleted
Removed by shon (5) on 2012-04-08 19:40:23 If you don't want to be here, be a man and just leave. If you're truly the original CAP.

He's CAP.

Who are you?

I haven't broken any laws.

Do you share talking points with the NAMBLA guys by any chance?

I say post some rules and MadPolyp jumps and posts the penal code.


Nervous, or what?

I think it's the very idea of "child porn" that is repulsive.
People that feel a need to skirt the law while still projecting the same idea are really neither clever nor moral.
They are no more than sick degenerates looking for a way to express themselves.

That said, they should be dipped in shit and set on fire. So should the people that try to portray others as "pedos" for the sole purpose of slander.

ReBourne wrote:

I think it's the very idea of "child porn" that is repulsive.
People that feel a need to skirt the law while still projecting the same idea are really neither clever nor moral.
They are no more than sick degenerates looking for a way to express themselves.

That said, they should be dipped in shit and set on fire. So should the people that try to portray others as "pedos" for the sole purpose of slander.

Dog fucker.

OldLyme wrote:

ReBourne wrote:

I think it's the very idea of "child porn" that is repulsive.
People that feel a need to skirt the law while still projecting the same idea are really neither clever nor moral.
They are no more than sick degenerates looking for a way to express themselves.

That said, they should be dipped in shit and set on fire. So should the people that try to portray others as "pedos" for the sole purpose of slander.

Dog fucker.

I was quite aware that you et al would be offended. So be it.

I was quite aware that you et al would be offended. So be it.

Latin?

Papist.

geebart wrote:

I'm pretty sure some of the shit you posted could be construed to fall under section V. Lascivious being defined as " feeling or revealing an overt and often offensive sexual desire"

note; THE KEY TERM IS DESIRE; i.e. an actual act doesn't need to take place.

The person also has to be under 18 for the law to apply in any way.

So like I said, I haven't broken any lws.

Who owns this site?

Summary of the last four pages: Shon is for 'free speech*' unless you flame MadPedo for posting naked kids in a "hotties" thread. You know, because flaming someone outside a flame thread is off topic and that's a no no on FF.com whereas posting naked kids in a "hotties thread" is, well, apparently, on topic. Amazing isn't it ?

* shontalk for pretending not to know what the utter morons he promotes as moderators are doing

OldLyme wrote:

I say post some rules and MadPolyp jumps and posts the penal code.


Nervous, or what?

Unlike some folks, I know nothing ever posted on the web by anyone is truly anonymous, believing that going in, why would I break the law? Isn't going to happen.

Nervous? Nope. If I were a criminal and had the law breathing down my neck, sure. Not like I'm even remotely hard to find.

Yet here I am. Nothing to arrest me for, or even bother questioning me about.

Faggot. I think you protest a bit too much. LOL. Only a nervous pedophile would dedicate so much time and effort to a site just to get K and feel justified. Only a narcissistice midget would ban every person who has been diligent in exposing his fraudulent pedophilic ass. LMFAO. Ban me too, "Shon".