Is that an objective opinion?

You've read my stories. What can I say? I was a precocious lad.

You might be right, Max. Still, that explanation is a lot less exciting than the "blowjobs and tea" scenario that I have been imagining all these years...

Yeah, I actually called a premium paid member out on a picture that he posted like that.

You know how you men folk can be. This guy popped a boner just after he dropped a deuce but in his moment of excitement he decided to make it a Kodak moment. He stood up, schlong in hand hovering over the toilet bowl AND the turd below. SNAP and post.

This guy has a tendency to not have any regard for what can be seen in the background of his pictures. Most of the time it looks like someone came in and ransacked the place.

There are certainly flaws in the system, not least of which is the eagerness with which some members seem to vote to delete without any explanation of how or why they came to that decision. I can only hope that they have cchecked out the alleged abuse but somehow I doubt it.
The systen itself is not the fault it is the way that some members us it that is the problem.

I agree with Andthisisme, it's really a decent system but it is the voting membership that is the "sucky" part. Not too long ago, admin tweaked the system so that if there was a referral to give consideration to, you knew. With that tweak came a bunch of new voters which is good AND bad.

Yesterday there were 3 referrals made within, probably, a 2 hour time period. We can go days and not see that many and 3 in two hours, GEESH!

What I've noticed and what really bothers me is that some voters just vote and they don't post a comment so basically, and in my head that means they have no opinion.

So yesterday, the first referral I see is for "Dangerous behavior". The referring member is not new to the evaluation system that is in place so why call it "Dangerous behavior" when your claim is about finding matches elsewhere on the internet? This claim CLEARLY falls under "Copyright/stolen" category. The referring member stated that the images could be found all over the internet and included links to Tumblr and one to only registered users can see external links . I excluded Tumblr as being valid proof and checked the imageporn link. Because the referring member did not include a specific picture or pictures, I visited the referred member's profile to see if I could find what I recalled seeing. I did and for the ease of the next voters, I attached a couple pictures to validate the referring members claim and the comment I provided was that not only was the referral made incorrectly (it was not "Dangerous behavior") also that we cannot vote to delete membership solely because their images were found elsewhere and reminded the referring member that their images can be found on the internet as well.

So here come the voters after me and there were 3 members that didn't agree with the referral (or possibly my vote), one member did comment and said his image could be found all over the internet, the other two voters had no opinions, no comments left. Ultimately, the referred member was deleted.

The second referral is submitted correctly as "Il-legal image" because the referring member believes the images are of young ladies who are not 18 years of age. The referring member does not submit any "evidence" nor do they provide any rationale with their referral, just a picture.

The picture submitted with the referral is clearly of two CLOTHED young women who both have their tongues sticking out, like Miley Cyrus, a a picture that you would probably find on Facebook. The member who uploaded these pictures in his gallery, Cockzilla, titled the picture something like this; "That's Sammi on the left, she's 18 and Rainey on the right, 22".

The first voter comes along and votes to delete. Why? I don't know. In my head, those are "of age" young women who are fully clothed and voted NO ABUSE. I provided my rationale but clearly, the majority decided that the picture was inappropriate and the member was deleted. One member did say that his gut impression was that the girls were not 18 and felt that their images were posted without their knowledge and would reach our to Cockzilla for clarification but without freezing the voting process, which allowed the others to vote to delete prior to Cockzilla being able to defend himself.

The third referral was "Copyright/stolen" and in my opinion, a clean referral. I voted to delete, the comment that I post if I am in agreement with the referring member is "As stated". This is the one where the member comes along, votes to delete but freezes the voting. WHY? It took the additional 24 hours to resolve but it looks like the member was deleted.

And that, even once, is reason enough to revamp or replace the system

Sadly I think there may well be more than an element of truth in what you say.

Yes, the gentleman was from Uruguay and as I recall, he has been a member for four years. New? Maybe new in the sense of voting but definitely not a new member.

You may have thought he canceled the freeze but once the freeze is implemented there is a freeze time of up to 24 hours before anything else can be done and all he did was he removed his vote of ABUSE.

Are you making reference to their weenises?

Will,

Sorry, I don't understand what that means. Can you dumb it down for me, thank you?

Okay, I THINK I understand that BUT could you dumb it down just a bit more, please.

If I understand you correctly, you say is that imageporn visits different sites aka trolling for the purpose of accumulating images for their members(?) to view. Correct? If that's correct, what keeps them from coming to SYD/SYC, or any amateur site, for purposes of borrowing member's images and then post them on their imageporn website?