Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
New Comment Rating: 1 Similar topics: 1.The STAR CHAMBER 2.Sneaker Photo Update 3.Why does he keep visiting my page? 4.The perverse joy of getting a member deleted 5.Here's a thought regarding the infamous Star Chamber "message"... Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
The member was referred because he's got some weed resting on his balls. Really?
Sadly, that is the mentality of some of the voting membership and I question whether they are able to effectively vote and remain impartial.
Type: Dangerous behavior
Explanation: Member has pictures that show up on several websites after doing a reverse search.
Originally, there were four very quick votes to delete the referred member but then one "brave" member stepped up and voted NO ABUSE and stated that no "proof" was provided. One of the voting panel members (who normally does not vote) quickly added links and suggested that WE were too lazy to do the research ourselves (I also voted NO ABUSE because no proof was provided). The "brave" member researched the links provided and updated their reason in which they pointed out the links provided as proof, were merely websites similar to SYD/SYC.
YIKES! Really? I know if the site was in the habit of booting members because their pictures were plastered all over the internet and on various different websites, we surely would lose a good number of members.
Case and point, a member was referred to the panel for review because pictures posted 6+ months ago seem to be reflective of him having his wiener in a jar full of maggots. Yeah, it's not my cup of tea, nor is the content of some of the other pictures featured in his gallery. Did he have his wiener shoved in an orifice of a duck, a unicorn, a penguin.....? NO! So what guidelines were broken? NONE!
Yet there are a good number of members voting to delete and MY GUESS is it is just because they find the pictures offensive. As another member pointed out, where do we draw the line? Should we be offended when a member modifies their dick by slicing it open? Or maybe we don't like their piercings? I personally do not like pissing pictures, how about that!? What next, should we refer folks for review and possible deletion when they have a different opinion then our own and post it publicly?
GET REAL, PEOPLE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, MOVE ALONG.
As a side note: why do penguins and unicorns always have to be dragged into the mix?
I don't get off on pissing pictures, nor seeing pictures of arms shoved up anyone's ya-ya. I think butts are beautiful but I don't need to get up close and personal with your bunghole. I believe that be.stiality is against the law in all countries so unless someone is/was able to PROVE that the maggot(s) were giving the member a blowjob against their will, the content of the picture did not breach site guidelines.
As for referencing ducks, unicorns and penguins, I really don't know why they popped into my head.
Just a follow up, the 9 year member was not deleted and thank you to all the level headed people who were able to "get this right". If "WE" start deleting people just because something they post offends us, this place will cease to be.
Remember, the burden of proof is on the referring member.
Yes, you have to back up what you say! You can't just refer another member and make a blanket statement that the member is posting pictures that are not theirs or that they are taken from the internet, please provide proof of your claim.
And to the referring members as well as voting members, just a reminder, members DO NOT have to be exclusive to SYD/SYC only. It is possible that you might find their pictures elsewhere because they have posted them elsewhere.
Last point, voting members, you should remain UNBIASED. Whether or not you feel the accused is nice, not nice, troll, etc, that should not have any bearing on your vote. When admin allows members to decide another member's fate based on their personal feelings, he might consider adding a special category, the "I DON'T LIKE THIS MEMBER" category but until then, YOUR VOTE SHOULD BE BASED ON FACTS.
By the way, have you noticed that, here at ShowItOff, the best way to get labeled a "troll" is to disagree with someone?
I'm waiting for the day when admin allows us to refer members for deletion for being straight up ASSWIPES and ASSHATS! I'm going to start writing my list now!
You’re shameless. Old people shouldn’t be here !!
This was posted on one of my pics. It's the only thing i have that i kept of this member. I voted today to delete him because he has been abusive many times to me. Was i correct??,,I really **** to throw someone out. Please,,any comments are welcomed.
We members cannot see conversations where abuse is given. That seems to me should go straight to admin, with copies of the chat log, if the abuse is serious for him to deal with. The comment above is unkind and unpleasant but I would imagine not serious enough for deletion.
I remember a time in November, 2015, when someone referred you, your profile to the evaluation panel for deletion. Do you recall why? You posted a number of Photoshop'd pics as well as straight up internet pics. Based on the FACTS presented, there were a number of members that wanted to delete you. The panel would have been within the guidelines to do so, but it didn't go down like that. You reluctantly removed all pictures, all but one, that directed displeasure toward me. twowarmtts, I'm really having a difficult time understanding that you, of all people, have based your vote on personal reasons and not facts.
Being biased might be natural but you should strive to be unbiased. As for feeling that I am a bitch who has attacks your friends or "site police", that's subjective. I am most certainly guilty of calling certain members ASSWIPES and ASSHATS, yep, I do. And those certain members are guilty of calling me names far worse than that. I do not judge you based on the friends you keep, your clicque, I attempt to judge you without any bias and solely upon our own interactions.
--------------------------------------- added after 8 minutes
Having said that, my intention is not, nor will it ever be, to insult anyone unless they do so first. I noticed that the other members who voted for expulsion did not state a reason, so, to keep you and the other investigative members happy, I changed my vote. Then, being a woman, I changed my mind again and re-voted for expulsion. No reason given.
Yes, I will welcome new members. I've been doing that a long time, long before admin allowed members the opportunity to earn points for doing so. Yep, I was busy welcoming new members while receiving snide remarks from others. Were you aware that some of your friends have followed suit? For sure, their welcome messages are worded very similar to mine.
I think I've stated quite clearly, in my bio, that I consider myself to be more of a voyeur than exhibitionist. I don't feel the need nor desire to present myself in any other light.
As for policing and investigating all complaints, ALL complaints? Hardly not. I feel that being involved in the evaluation panel is a privilege. It was and is time for members to open their eyes and see that some members are deleted for flimsy and frivolous reasons. Thank goodness that there are open minded members who realize that everything is not black or white.
And as for me, my life, surrounding myself with ass kissers, no, thank you, that is definitely not for me.
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
By the way, there's no need for you to vote on my picture. I gave you your points back by way of a 15 point "donation".
It's rather sad that some of the voting members have ZERO TOLERANCE to other members that post internet pictures, no "hall pass", no warning, no leniency, NO FORGIVENESS!
What are your thoughts with regard to members posting internet pictures?
"The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641), and was composed of Privy Councillors andcommon-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courtsin civil and criminal matters. The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.
In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. 'Star Chamber' can also be used in its original meaning, for instance when a politician uses parliamentary privilege to attack a powerful organisation or person.[a]"
And how the name relates to the evaluation panel, previously, it seemed as if a member was referred to the evaluation panel for any reason, that member was swiftly banned and deleted. Was the banning legitimate? Just my opinion, in some situations it was excessive and overkill. The piece about the Star Chamber being established to ensure "the fair enforcement of laws" really fits what the evaluation panel was set up to do but the evaluation panel fell short of doing.
Now, specifically in the case of the 7 year member, the member was contacted, the member has removed the picture(s) yet we still have members that do not want to be "forgiving" and stand firm with their vote to proceed with deletion.
I really don't care if a member posts pics of others but they should say they are photos derived from other sources.
I am one who goes by the 3 strikes and your out. Give the person a chance to explain why. There may be a valid reason.
I understand if the pic is copyrighted, unless they themselves own the copyright.
If someone finds my posts offensive they only need to tell me and I surely will remove them. In fact, I think I will put that in my profile!
Are the "site police" members that search for and report fakes (those posting internet pictures) OR do you feel the "site police" are the members that decide the fate of the members reported?
/abuse_reports.php
/member.php?w=312152
From what he posted, it looks like his character was already deformed before she posted his rants in public...
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
Here's the thing:
If you are going to say nasty, racist things to a person in private--and, make no mistake, that shit was pretty damn nasty!--then cry like a fucking baby and try to get them deleted when they show your true colors to the rest of the site, YOU are the one who deserves to be deleted.
In my opinion, it really wasn't necessary to freeze the voting for this referral because it appeared that the reported member did not do anything wrong that would warrant deletion. It baffled me that the member that froze all voting went in and deleted his NO ABUSE vote. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo......
/suspicious.php
So, either we are to assume that asianbabe asked him to send a bunch of misogynistic, racist messages, or that he feels it is okay for HIM to send unwanted messages but it is out of line for others to do the same to him.
Some background, the member referred has been deleted multiple times but continues to create new profiles from time to time. Apparently, the concern of this profile is that it may be a profile established for "revenge porn".
Getting back to the referral, it seems to me that if this profile is a known fake to admin, he would have deleted it immediately, with no regret. But admin did not delete the profile and what was interesting in his referral, he suggested that we contact the member to request a "verification" picture. I did contact the member 2+ days ago but the member has not been online in over 3 days. I have never liked or supported the idea of deleting a member without giving them the benefit of doubt and the option of correcting the problem.
I hope that the reported member returns sooner than later because the voting members are chomping at the bits to get this profile deleted.
It's not always porn. It just happens to be porn on this site, because it's a sex site. But I had several sites with funny pics and it was very annoying that some individuals posted photos of someone they h@te with degrading titles and/or comments. Not necessarily exes, sometimes they post their bosses or colleagues, their rivals may be, both male and female. But females get this more often. And some are so butthurt that they keep re-posting same shit for years. I saw same pics appearing with degrading comments over and over through 8 fucking years.
This bonnie38 is indeed a male created account. Note that he bothered to title every pic as "Bonnie". Also, something you can't see - this account does not reply to private messages. Not a single reply. No public comments either. So what do you think is a purpose of the poster considering that they are not interested in any interaction?
And thanks for pointing it out.
Did the member fail to produce a verification picture and was deleted through the normal voting process?
--------------------------------------- added after 16 hours
Maybe I'm not going to get a response.....
Look at the upload on my page, a member feels that based on where Laura Lopez lives, this profile was fake and created as an attempt to bring shame to her. Also, because he found something on Yandex, a Russian server. Quite frankly, I didn't understand what I was supposed to see. I didn't understand the significance of the "degrading titles and/or comments". I just didn't UNDERSTAND and that's why I was hoping to receive a response.
Although I was not familar with the profile of bonnie38, I gathered that admin deleted said profile because he thanked you for pointing the member out to him and because each photo was titled "Bonnie", because the member did not reply to any private message or post any public comment.
New Comment Go to top