LPSG Members: become part of the solution.

[SpoiledPrincess]

We do that Kalipygian, it still doesn't stop them coming in the chat room for instance and suckering some poor guy into believing they're genuine, then when he finds out he's all disenchanted with women on the net.

 

[novice_btm]

I think that not only should stolen pix be ban-able, but provable fakes (Photoshopped) that are attempted to be passed off as real should be also. The public censuring does NOT work. We do that now, and it has very limited success. Once in a while people will pull the offending pix, but there are still tons of "duplicate" images in the galleries, as well as pix that can been seen by the naked eye to have used the Photoshop "clone" tool to elongate, or otherwise enhance the image.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I think that not only should stolen pix be ban-able, but provable fakes (Photoshopped) that are attempted to be passed off as real should be also. The public censuring does NOT work. We do that now, and it has very limited success. Once in a while people will pull the offending pix, but there are still tons of "duplicate" images in the galleries, as well as pix that can been seen by the naked eye to have used the Photoshop "clone" tool to elongate, or otherwise enhance the image.

Too much, nov.
Of course, many are suggesting a series of warnings leading up to a ban.
Perhaps that would work.
And those few that would ultimately be banned would be hoist by their own retard.

 

[Principessa]

I think male mods should be required to post cock pics. How do we know they are men and not 60 year old over sexed grandmas? :tongue: :biggrin1:

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I also think it'd be nice if the mods posted pics and joined in the naked fun They'd be leading by example.

 

[novice_btm]

Too much, nov.
Of course, many are suggesting a series of warnings leading up to a ban.
Perhaps that would work.
And those few that would ultimately be banned would be hoist by their own retard.

Yes, it would have to go through the same process, but I still think that it should be a basis for warning, and the process to start. If you had pix posted, and found them elsewhere being used by someone else, TRUST ME, you'd want at least a banning. It's identity theft!

 

[Principessa]

I know for a fact wingnut84 had at least 2 warnings in the last month before being banned tonight.

Too much, nov.
Of course, many are suggesting a series of warnings leading up to a ban. Perhaps that would work. And those few that would ultimately be banned would be hoist by their own retard.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Yes, it would have to go through the same process, but I still think that it should be a basis for warning, and the process to start. If you had pix posted, and found them elsewhere being used by someone else, TRUST ME, you'd want at least a banning. It's identity theft!

The problem comes in when it's not clear which is the victim and which the thief.
But sometimes that's quite obvious.
Often.

 

[novice_btm]

The problem comes in when it's not clear which is the victim and which the thief.
But sometimes that's quite obvious.
Often.

Bannings are case-by-case anyway, so it would have to be figured out in the process who was who, but as you admitted, sometimes it's quite obvious, and I would actually go farther and say that MOST times it's quickly provable.

 

[Freddie53]

The workaround for stating the reason for banning in the case of underage members could be simply stating that they had 'falsified date of birth' in their registration. Or just 'falsification of registration information'. ( I have no idea how moderators can be certain, in many cases, of a person's age)

I have not seen a persuasive argument presented that there is need for secrecy in any other catagory of banning.


Thanks.:biggrin1:

I am going through reading these as well. And wanted to make a comment on the underage. I am not the brightest light bulb when it comes to being able to "google" different kinds of things on the Internet. I do know that it might be inappropriate to have a list of all banned underaged as those who know how can take that list and make it much easier to identify and contact those underage particularly if they left an e-mail address laying around.

As far as just putting banned underage on the avatar, I don't know if that would put them at greater risk or not. I would have to find out from Internet experts in identifying people. I haven't read the rest of these and someone may have already suggested this, but I am in favor of being able to put Suspended, Temporary Ban and/or Banned on the avatar. Suspended would just mean that posting privledges are suspended because there is something the mods are investigating and feel it is urgent enough to stop the poster from posting until the investigation is complete. Temporary Ban is self explanatory. I don't think there is a way to put how long the ban is on the avatar though. Maybe that could be put in the profile somewhere - one day, one week etc. If the reaason for the ban is going to be made public, I would think somewhere in the profile would be the best place.

 

[Freddie53]

On a more general note -- I'm enjoying these suggestions. I've seen other boards with a "require X posts before allowing Y" rule (Thundersplace is one, for example), and I believe it lowers overall post quality, thanks to members trying thoughtlessly to reach that X-post threshhold.

Several have debated which is better a certain post count or a certain period of time as a member. Jeff pointed out the best reason for two week membership. It would reduce spammers.

Why not do both? Two weeks as a member. And a certain number of posts to start a thread.

Question for those who know more than I do. Would having a 24 hour time delay between joining and posting the first post cut down on commercial spam? It would give mods some time to check for under age members which everyone seems to agree should be the most important duty of a mod.

 

[kalipygian]

Clearly distinguishing between a suspension/temporary ban and a permanent ban, and communicating that, would be excellent. They are very different.

( still haven't seen a clear statement as to which BD is under, just some unofficial speculation, guess it will become apparent Saturday)

 

[D_Roderick Beresford Stiffington IV]

I'm also in favor of less permanent bans, more use of diplomacy and explaining to temporary banned members why they were banned. All too often they're temp banned, then will do something rash because of a lack of explanation and end up permanently banned. Aside from the underage users, I think we should make the reason for a ban public as well. This whole latest incident would have never occured if a small notice was made in the help desk, a locked topic with the banned person's ID and a small statement of reason for the banning.

I agree with Kotch that members need to have trust in the mods, and if they feel were doing something inappropriate or wrong that they can report us to someone. I don't think this person should be Rob_E though, he's a busy guy and can't be dealing with a bunch of complaints. Some may be valid but I suspect generally speaking that most would be hate against the individual. We can't have Rob_E sifting through 20 PMs about why Hickboy is an ass =).

What I would recommend since we do need to be held accountable is having the Co-admins responsible for the mods. If someone has a valid complaint, bring it to mindseye or Pecker, the Co-Admins. If they feel it warrants some looking into, they'll discuss it and bring it up with Rob, where the three will decide the fate and outcome.

Lastly I wanted to comment on Gold Members voting on future mods. I think this is a bad idea. As you said Kotch, there's the popularity contest aspect to it, but thats just a very small reason. Its always been my belief that the paying members here are no different than the rest of us. I mean no disrespect by that, your contribution is extremely appreciated. But there were a number of Gold Members who during my time as mod have demanded I explain myself, my actions, wanting to know outcomes of a banning, etc. They even went as far as saying "I am a paying member, I demand to know" etc. These people are no more welcomed to information than the rest of the public membership.

Everyone contributes to this great site in their own way, some members make great posts, bringing great intellectual content here. Others post wonderful galleries of themselves attracting others to join the site, a few of us do our best here as moderators and Co-Admins which we don't get paid for, were volunteers who were originally members and loved the site enough to want to help out. Its not a power trip, we don't want to be mods to ban people we don't like. Regardless, everyone is contributing in their own way, whether it be money or content, everyone is the same. We are LPSG.

 

[kalipygian]

I'm also in favor of less permanent bans, more use of diplomacy and explaining to temporary banned members why they were banned. All too often they're temp banned, then will do something rash because of a lack of explanation and end up permanently banned. Aside from the underage users, I think we should make the reason for a ban public as well. This whole latest incident would have never occured if a small notice was made in the help desk, a locked topic with the banned person's ID and a small statement of reason for the banning.

I agree with Kotch that members need to have trust in the mods, and if they feel were doing something inappropriate or wrong that they can report us to someone. I don't think this person should be Rob_E though, he's a busy guy and can't be dealing with a bunch of complaints. Some may be valid but I suspect generally speaking that most would be hate against the individual. We can't have Rob_E sifting through 20 PMs about why Hickboy is an ass =).

What I would recommend since we do need to be held accountable is having the Co-admins responsible for the mods. If someone has a valid complaint, bring it to mindseye or Pecker, the Co-Admins. If they feel it warrants some looking into, they'll discuss it and bring it up with Rob, where the three will decide the fate and outcome.

Lastly I wanted to comment on Gold Members voting on future mods. I think this is a bad idea. As you said Kotch, there's the popularity contest aspect to it, but thats just a very small reason. Its always been my belief that the paying members here are no different than the rest of us. I mean no disrespect by that, your contribution is extremely appreciated. But there were a number of Gold Members who during my time as mod have demanded I explain myself, my actions, wanting to know outcomes of a banning, etc. They even went as far as saying "I am a paying member, I demand to know" etc. These people are no more welcomed to information than the rest of the public membership.

Everyone contributes to this great site in their own way, some members make great posts, bringing great intellectual content here. Others post wonderful galleries of themselves attracting others to join the site, a few of us do our best here as moderators and Co-Admins which we don't get paid for, were volunteers who were originally members and loved the site enough to want to help out. Its not a power trip, we don't want to be mods to ban people we don't like. Regardless, everyone is contributing in their own way, whether it be money or content, everyone is the same. We are LPSG.

I Don't know if the 'Co-admins' presently are regarded with any greater confidence, or that that the position is actually different from a moderator, those titles just appeared a while back with no explanation that I noticed. (and some people asked) Concerns have been ignored.

What you say in the first paragraph seems to be a bit contradicted by what you say in the fourth one.

You are not clear as to whether you think no members or all members should be able to vote on moderators.


I think members being part of the selection, and maybe even removal process, of moderators is an excellent suggestion.

Any member should be entitled to a reasonable answer to a reasonable question. (The present situation is largely due to an explanation being requested for the banning of BD, and some of the Co- Admin/moderators, in effect, saying to the members, (pardon the Zoran) 'fuck off'.)

I want to stay with positive proposals in this thread, in this post I don't see a way of suggesting remedies to mistakes without mentioning them.

 

[dong20]

Lastly I wanted to comment on Gold Members voting on future mods. I think this is a bad idea. As you said Kotch, there's the popularity contest aspect to it, but thats just a very small reason. Its always been my belief that the paying members here are no different than the rest of us. I mean no disrespect by that, your contribution is extremely appreciated. But there were a number of Gold Members who during my time as mod have demanded I explain myself, my actions, wanting to know outcomes of a banning, etc. They even went as far as saying "I am a paying member, I demand to know" etc. These people are no more welcomed to information than the rest of the public membership.

Therein lies a conflict. I agree that all members should be equally respected but it would appear that view is not held by all, not least the OP. Now, if Gold membership is intended only to confer full gallery access but no more, that's rather a slap in the face to those who contribute by posting alone when we're told that our views count for little because we don't pay. You see the concern?

Alternatively, if in some hypothetical new system Gold membership counts for more than gallery access it would need to be specified exactly what that 'more' is. It could be a greater stake in site management for example, moderator elections being only one I suggested in post 3.

In either case an open vote may amount to little more than a popularity test, though I'm not entirely convinced of that, but wouldn't any vote involving the membership would be a step forward from direct appointment?

I recognised this when I suggested that Rob may wish to provide (or pick from) a short list. Naturally, some will say Rob will pick only those who will best suit his agenda, well with respect, it's his site, why shouldn't he? The difficulties are likely to arise when Rob's agenda is at serious odds with a significant portion of the membership.

I'm in favour of some form of membership input in moderator election/removal, even if in a limited form.

 

[musclebutt2]

I am against limiting access to the galleries by non-paying members or guests. If it weren't for the thumbnails I wouldn't have initially stuck around to read the threads. These days, I find myself tempted to pay to access the full sized pics because there are some really amazing galleries on here. On certain days when I am bored with the discussion board I check out the galleries instead. I also find it titillating to converse with someone and know what their jiggly bits look like, that's one of the fun factors of LPSG. I have uploaded my own pics on here and I feel that it is a valuable contribution to the LPSG community. There are more non paying members with revealing pictures posted versus gold members, and honestly, w/o those galleries this site would disappear. It's probably safe to say that over 50% of people using this site find the galleries important and access them regularly (whether actively posting or not). The way it is presently set up is fine. If I could see maybe a limit of 5 full sized pics per week as a non gold member that would be even better, but that's just icing on the cake.

Right-clicking of pics should be activated. How else do I keep my screensaver interesting? Seriously though, some idiot on Craigslist recently posted an advertisement with my pics. I didn't know about it until a fuckbuddy of mine notified me. I emailed the faker to take it off and he promptly complied. It was funny, flattering, irritating, and sad at the same time; however, as with anything on the internet, pics should be taken with a grain of sand and there are always ways to circumvent right click disables.

I am also against setting posting/threading limits on new accounts. What's the point of registering for a membership if you can't post or start a topic? I know I would have lost interest very quickly with LPSG if these limits were in place. Yes, some people will make fools of themselves, but they will learn when nobody responds or they get redirected to a duplicate thread. If you find thread/posts annoying, don't read them. For that reason I don't bother visiting the Young & Hung section of LPSG.

As for spam, can't you have a spam report button like on Craigslist? I don't know how it really works, but I assume after X number of clicks it either automatically gets deleted or a mod checks it out.

I don't like third party age verification services because I absolutely dislike giving out my credit card information or any other sensitive personal information out online. I don't care how encrypted the software is, and how updated my antivirus software is, since I am running Windows on a PC I consider myself an easy target for hackers. I might be paranoid, but every time I bank online or use PayPal I get an unpleasant chill run up my spine. I think the present system of community moderation against minors works fine.

I feel neutral about deleting lapsed accounts, but maybe extending the deadline to one calendar year would be better to compensate for extended holidays (like summer break or broken digits). Better yet, on other websites or even hotmail, lapsed accounts are cleared but login information is retained. If you try to login with your nick and password you are forced to reregister your account, but nobody else is allowed to steal your handle in the interim.

I feel sympathetic to both sides of the banning argument and feel neutral. How about creating a new category for (permanent) bannings similar to the new introductions forum? After receiving email notice from the mods as to why they are being banned, these people get to post one final message on the board to say whatever, explain their reason for leaving, bid farewell to their friends, and/or leave further contact information outside of LPSG. It will be a closed thread with no respones allowed. Of course, mods will have editing power to **** names, sensitive information, or inappropriate language before it is posted.

 

[fortiesfun]

I have two suggestions, both of which involve more moderator activity, so I know I am swimming upstream here, but...

1. I suggest that new members not be allowed to post until after they have produced a new member introduction that has been submitted to a moderator and/or posted a gallery. That is, we could set the tone that one is expected to make some substantial contribution to the place at the outset.

2. I propose that an area be created for a wiki-like system to address some topics of continuing interest under the direction of a moderator, or an editor who has authority over that one thread only. Here is my logic: Many older members become frustrated that we continually re-plough old ground by going over and over whether or not there are racial differences in penis sizes, what the real average size is, what accounts for sexual orientations, etc. Thoughtful responses get lost in the haze as new threads are started on the same old subjects with the same old crap posted over and over again. (The good stuff is less likely to be re-posted, as it is discouraging to see one's long, thoughtful contribution trumped by a response like, "My sister's boyfriend is black and his wang is two feet long." That only has to happen to you once and you quit posting detailed, prepared stuff.

The ability to create an "article" that summarizes the contributions of members, to which one could make moderated editorial changes and additions, and which is clearly sourced could make interesting reading for the new member. If it was posted as a sticky at the top of the relevant forum, it might even head off some new threads on tired subjects, but new members could send in suggestions for additions or deletions like anybody else. It could give longer term members something more productive to do with their time that just shoot at each other and/or the moderators. It could even make this place an authoritative source on many penilely-related topics.

I've not ventured much of an opinion on current controversy, but at least in part I think the relentless negativity of some members had to do with the fact that they had begun to think their positive contributions went largely unnoticed but their sniping always got a rise. Perhaps a wiki area could help channel that energy into an area with some lasting value.

 

[dong20]

The balance between the needs of site 'management' and site 'membership' isn't an easy, or stable one. The balance between allowing new members from posting drivel from day one and placing limits on initial activity while they 'prove' themselves isn't much easier.

The former is perhaps inevitable, site owners want a profitable site, user consideration is secondary. New members being handcuffed, tigher controls on content and 'tone' reeks of censorship and nannying.

If adults can't stand on their own feet and take the flak for posting drivel then do they belong in this environment? On the flip side why should paying members, or those who have built a community have it 'spoiled' by idiots, trolls and spammers?

I suppose it comes down to what LPSG is to become; the nostalgia for days past evinced by some is all well and good, but because the past is past it's also largely irrelevant, or can be catered for 'elsewhere'. I'm not immune to that very desire but neither am I so blinkered as to deny that change, evolution is necessary. The last few months have proven that.

I see three main alternatives:

1. Membership by invitation - No restriction, no moderation and no bannings other than in exceptional circumsatances. Only those of a like mentality allowed, that may work for some, but it seems to me that it would strike at the very heart of the LPSG to which they yearn to return.
2. A complete open house - Like now, Gold members get gallery access, non payers don't but are otherwise 'equal'. Some management changes - banning notification/explaination and so on are introduced, Limited or no active moderation, other than for bannning, and a mechanism for moderator abuse restriction.
3. A compromise - Lots of hand holding, nannying, tighter controls on newbie's posting, on content, tone and so on are introduced, and enforced. Bannings to be moderator or member driven. More accountablility. More democratic for sure, but this is the Internet, not parliament.

The tolerance and respect some people spoke of cannot be enforced from outside, by moderation or otherwise. It must come from within the membership. Of course, respect and tolerance are somewhat subjective.

Interesting thread. :smile:

 

[diamond]

I would like to see a system in place where if a new member signs up, and uploads pics to the gallery, the person must hold up their local newspaper beside their pics. At least this way people can see the actual date that the person took the pic, and furthermore it is much more difficult to photoshop a newspaper edition to someones pic. (Before people blast me with photoshop ideology, I realize it's not fool proof however it is a start).

Personally I am sick of hearing how many guys pose as women in order to dupe men. I am also sick of women posting fake ass pics of themselves. I for one was subject to harrassment for 8 solid months due to most members paranoia. I personally think that if someone pretends to be a woman and is actually a man that person should get a ban permanently, and equally so if a woman posts fake pics of herself.

My second gripe is why on earth are bannings not justified publicly? I realize the underage concern etc, however why not just have generic banning statement stating which TOS was violated. No need for lengthy explanations, just a reasoning would be nice. Furthermore I would like to see an appeal process if someone feels they have been wrongly accused.

I would like to see a few choices for banning such as one week, 6 months, one year or, permenant.

My two cents, that is all.

 

[dong20]

I would like to see a system in place where if a new member signs up, and uploads pics to the gallery, the person must hold up their local newspaper beside their pics. At least this way people can see the actual date that the person took the pic, and furthermore it is much more difficult to photoshop a newspaper edition to someones pic. (Before people blast me with photoshop ideology, I realize it's not fool proof however it is a start).

I suppose it depends on the newspaper but the date is usually very small (in comparison to say a body shot). Also, not everyone may have a camera capable of taking a picture with sufficient resolution or that close up. If the intent is to prevent stealing or re-using pictures, how would the date alone help? Some form of personal ID is needed for that, and that's risky. It may not be easy to fake the paper but it would be easy to 'shop' the date. Who could prove, without knowledge of that days headline, which was the correct one?

I'm not trying to devalue the idea, just suggest ways it may fall down. :smile:

Personally I am sick of hearing how many guys pose as women in order to dupe men. I am also sick of women posting fake ass pics of themselves. I for one was subject to harrassment for 8 solid months due to most members paranoia. I personally think that if someone pretends to be a woman and is actually a man that person should get a ban permanently, and equally so if a woman posts fake pics of herself.

How would you suggest stopping it without positive, personal identification...?