ToS revised

[Skull Mason]

So does "he we do not speak of" fall into this category?

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

So does "he we do not speak of" fall into this category?

Goodluck with that one.

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

So does "he we do not speak of" fall into this category?

And who might that be? If y're gonna post that we can ask right?!

 

[Mem]

So does "he we do not speak of" fall into this category?

"he" will never admit to being a 75 year old gay man.

 

[Gillette]

We aren't dealing with things as "shallow" (not the best term, but you get my point I'm sure) as penis size, or general looks of a person. This ToS revision is purely to deal with matters that could cause serious problems for the others involved, such as gender and age.

Side note: I apologize for using the word shallow above, it isn't the correct term, I simply can't find the word I'm looking for.

Superficial?

 

[jeff black]

And who might that be? If y're gonna post that we can ask right?!

I think everyone and their dog/cat knows who skull is talking about.

What about the ToS about following people around and commenting on them and never stopping? What if it's like a...vendetta thing where the person doesn't stop following a member around and then their friends making ENDLESS comments that are not good?

BE careful on this one, hells. What I'm noticing, is that some people are getting harassed/followed, only to turn around and return the favour right back. My thoughts are, if we ban/remove one, we have to remove the other one too. I'm sure you've noticed that some of the "innocent" really aren't all that innocent with their choice of words.:smile:

 

[Mem]

Here is a song to enjoy while reading this thread

YouTube - Fred Schneider MONSTER available on iTunes

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

I think everyone and their dog/cat knows who skull is talking about.



BE careful on this one, hells. What I'm noticing, is that some people are getting harassed/followed, only to turn around and return the favour right back. My thoughts are, if we ban/remove one, we have to remove the other one too. I'm sure you've noticed that some of the "innocent" really aren't all that innocent with their choice of words.:smile:

Gotcha....mostly....sometimes you have to respond wether you want to or not. Yes it leads to back and forth but when it first happens you feel you have to

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

So does "he we do not speak of" fall into this category?

Only if you have solid proof.

 

[Skull Mason]

Only if you have solid proof.

Well, is there any solid proof to the contrary? I find the gold status laughable...

 

[D_Portelay Porquesword]

Controversy!

 

[Freddie53]

If the images are subject to copyright restrictions those images are removed and repeat offenders are sanctioned to various degrees already. Cases of one member stealing the pics of another are easily dealt with if the actual owner submits an image proving they are the one in the others being used along with their complaint.

We aren't dealing with things as "shallow" (not the best term, but you get my point I'm sure) as penis size, or general looks of a person. This ToS revision is purely to deal with matters that could cause serious problems for the others involved, such as gender and age.

No straight guy wants to find out that the woman they've been "dating" is really a 6'2 guy with huge muscles, and very few 18yos would be happy to discover that their 19yo internet lover is actually in his 50s.

I appreciate that this isn't the clearest of issues, and we are going to have to treat each case individually, not everyone will be happy with the results either, but it is impossible to remove all fakes from the site, at least this way we can remove those who pose the biggest problem as and when sufficient evidence is presented.

Side note: I apologize for using the word shallow above, it isn't the correct term, I simply can't find the word I'm looking for.

Kotch, the word you are looking for is "benign."

Falsification of birth is against the ToS, but I have never known of anyone being banned for camouflaging the public profile information a tad bit to help hide their real identity.

So they tell on the public board that are 32 when they are 31 and they tell everyone that today is thier birthday when they put on the private profile that the mods can see, their real birthdate, which is a few days off. People give slightly different info about where they live that doesn't affect relationships.

Those are all benign. It is the BLATENT ones that give the trouble. I like some others posted beleive that the Tos covered that, but it doesn't help to clarify it a bit more if it helps cut down on people disrupting the board.

 

[HazelGod]

Cue Dolfette's banning in 3...2...1...

 

[Northland]

LPSG has had a problem with some members falsifying their gender or age, etc. to fool members into camming/communicating with them. Since it is not only unfair to the membership but also bordering on illegal, the Moderating Team has added the following to the Terms of Service:

"Blatant attempts to deceive the membership - Such as falsifying gender or age for the purpose of disrupting the board or taking advantage of member(s)."

This isn't an invitation for the membership to report every faker on the site (goodness knows we don't have enough moderators to cover that) but your diligence is appreciated where BLATANT attempts to deceive the membership disrupt the flow or put LPSG at risk.

Sounds good to me.

I highlighted the one area since it can call into question legal ramifications if a person fakes their age and it turns out they are under the age which law requires for a site such as this.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Good plan Pecker. Long overdue.

 

[flame boy]

An interesting and worthy addition. Now how should I go about solidifying some proof that Jamie Ford is really a 87 year old woman....

 

[798686]

An interesting and worthy addition. Now how should I go about solidifying some proof that Jamie Ford is really a 87 year old woman....

Thought that was already obvious to people? :tongue:

 

[Pecker]

An interesting and worthy addition. Now how should I go about solidifying some proof that Jamie Ford is really a 87 year old woman....

His 70th High School reunion photo should settle it.

 

[Yorkie]

I like the new stipulation.

Beh.

That being said, I have always held a different DAY in my birthday month, in order to not have someone try to track me down by my date of birth. Thus, my age is never in question.

That's the only reason I've kept my birthday private.
I've always thought the main purpose of the rule was to legally protect the site from under 18s.

Cue Dolfette's banning in 3...2...1...

Nah... it has to be "for the purpose of disrupting the board or taking advantage of member(s)."
I'm still waiting for Dolfette to take advantage of me.

 

[JF]

An interesting and worthy addition. Now how should I go about solidifying some proof that Jamie Ford is really a 87 year old woman....

<Waves zimmer frame in an agitated manner>

Why you cheeky whippersnapper, you ! I know where you live - your mother will get to hear about this when I bump into her in the Post Office queue on Tuesday as I collect my pension. I didn't work in the fields during the war to be spoken to like this !

Kids these days - no respect for their elders and betters.

Now, where did I leave my knitting . . . . . .