board77

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

But people don't even want to accept those minimal protections.

Voronwe - where did you see that? I did not... the protection like sponsors were not refused by anybody - it was discussed how to make them doable, how to make it just - I would not sponsor someone on principle, but I don't refuse the idea or see it as an idea which would force me to stop being a part of it, as votes would.

Nor did I see anybody say that.

Between liking those minimal protections and accepting them is a difference.

But I must say I feel like the whole discussion is only a veiled way to get rid of the forum for "security reasons"- so do it! As soon as someone lines out an aspect of the proposal he or she does not agree with it, it is dealed like a complete refusal. I should not say anything any more on the subject if it's seen as refusing minimal protection if I critisize or dislike the was this protection is proposed. Or if I say that I don't feel the need for it. I do not deny anybody else's need. I just state mine. No votes is a need for me. No separate url too.

I should just shut up.

Can we begin from the assumption that these protections are needed in some form? My problem with this discussion is that some people seem to keep saying, "It shouldn't be that way! I hate it!" which is not useful. Maybe it shouldn't have to be that way, and maybe they do hate it, but given that SOMETHING must be done, can we possibly come to a consensus here?

• Opening ToE to the public with no restrictions is unacceptable: liability, child protection, people being hurt.
  
  Closing ToE and doing away with it is unacceptable: people love ToE.

Where, between those two points, can we arrive at a model for running ToE?

Though I understand many of the objections I've been hearing (and don't understand many others), I still feel like getting the closest to the current model is the ideal. If it were 100% up to me, I would probably leave it exactly as is.

Quote:

No votes is a need for me. No separate url too.

Nin, the proposal that I made has no votes. It has no separate url. And yet you said that it was unacceptable to you and that you would leave the forum if it were implemented, unless I grossly misunderstood you.

You can believe me or not, but I am not trying to get rid of ToE. I am trying to save it. But my contributions to this discussion are causing more harm then good at this point. So I will bow out and hope that y'all can figure it out.

But we can't leave it as it is when the board opens, yov. And the board is clearly going to open fairly soon. So I repeat, given that safeguards must be put in place, can we arrive at a model for running ToE?

If I'm going to give a truly useful opinion, Prim, I need to re-read this whole thread and gather my thoughts regarding the concerns and suggestions. I'll try and do that soon but I'm busy this week so no promises. Until then, I think I'll bow out of this as well...

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

7. A discussion would then ensue in the ToE forum for 10 (?) days, in which anyone who has any concerns can voice them.

8. If, at the end of the discussion period, two people are willing to second the proposal to invite the person, the invitation will be extended.

A discussion in which a person can be refused is a vote or a veto - you just avoid to call the child by its name.

I still think that age-restriction should be the only criteria, and that then the posters of ToE should have to be vigilant - more vigilant than in other fora. But if a sponsorship is required - fine, I'll live with it. I won't just sponsor anybody myself, though, but that's a bit like people who refused to vote when votes were still going on.

Quote:

Opening ToE to the public with no restrictions is unacceptable: liability, child protection, people being hurt.

Can anyone in fact substantiate that this is not also true of the "Flirting Thread", or PMs. Is the apparent need for protection based solely on the subject matter at hand? There was no TOE at TORC, yet there were alleged instances of inappropriate behavior.

I appreciate the concern and suggestions of protection and they appear sound to me. However are we just covering our asses or are we trying to protect people? If we are indeed attempting to protect people, then just implementing this for the TOE forum is not going to achieve the goal.
I have no facts to back up this assertion, but from my own layman's point of view, I would bet that predators would frequent places that interest children such as gaming forums etc. not a sex forum. That would be too overt imo. If protection is indeed the goal then this method of protection has to extend board wide, and not just in the TOE forum.

I think we have to find a reasonable level of comfort here. We certainly can't do background checks on people or anything like that. Just the fact that we have a messageboard is dictating that we and all of the participants here are at some risk. So where is the comfort zone?
That is going to be different for just about everyone here.
I propose that we use a disclaimer and police ourselves. That has to be a reasonable effort of protection on our part. As much as I would like to be able to protect everyone, that just isn't feasible in this type of environment.

A good set of common sense rules and the help and participation of all the posters to police this site is the best protection we can reasonably offer.

For the record, I have no problem with the suggested measures. I think they are overkill but I am quite willing to abide by them and will vote in favour of them if it comes to a vote. However, I will reiterate my earlier point that all this does is gives us the illusion of a safer forum and possibly some protection from litigation.

Nobody really knew me when I joined B77 and ToE. They still don't know me well enough to judge my sexual proclivities besides what I choose to reveal (or for that matter possibly lie about) on the fora. I could well be raving psychopath. My personal feeling is that anything really personal tends to get taken to PM or IM. I have to admit that I am more worried about the contents of the flirting thread and the Easter/Vegas thread than I am about any thread in England. Many of the participants in those threads are young and inexperienced. While the threads appear very innocent or slightly on the edge, there is a very real chance that one of the participants could read more into them than is intended. If those feelings are continued in IM or PM there is a very real danger and one that is less likely to be noticed or correctly handled than anything we see in England.

I say again, I will support the suggested safeguards for England, but I feel there are more important issues.

Alatar

Holby.... do you allow ... thank you for that post.

As for people protected from being hurt: nobody can do that. Ever.

However, there are specific problems with a forum that is set up to discuss sex. Read Sam's posts. There are precautions we have to take. We can say, "Oh, but that won't really protect people, so why do anything?" However. . . .

If the boards were a public building we owned, could we choose not to put a railing on a balcony because people can still climb on the railing and fall over, and sensible people will stay away from the edge? Do you think pointing that out would protect us, legally, if someone fell and was hurt?

I am not saying we shouldn't use reasonable care in dealing with this.
I am saying we should use reasonable care in dealing with the whole site, not just TOE. I don't think it is factual to assert that TOE is anymore of a danger zone than any other place on this board.
As for the liability aspect, then that is another story. Like I asked, are we covering our asses or protecting people?
If we are just watching our behinds, then all we are obligated to do is take the minimum legal steps.
If protection is our concern, then imo just concentrating on TOE is a faulty position.


And Nin, of course I allow

Okay, so I don't quite give up.

Prim, Voronwe, who here is disagreeing with precautions being taken? I honestly don't know where the two of you are pulling this from. It seems everybody feels precautions and protections are reasonable...as long as they don't go too far.

Alatar wrote:

I have to admit that I am more worried about the contents of the flirting thread and the Easter/Vegas thread than I am about any thread in England.

Alatar and Holby have a point about this. Does it bother anyone here to know that flirting and innuendo is going on with minors in the flirting thread?

Also, I hadn't thought about PMs. Holby brought up some excellent points.

Holby, England has to be restricted to people 18 and older. If I understand what you're saying, we should restrict the entire site that way, which means banning our present members who are under 18.

Eru, every time a precaution is suggested, somebody seems to object. The problem seems to be that in the minds of some people, the precautions we are legally required to take are "going too far."

Whether or not the actual danger in ToE is greater than elsewhere on the board, the fact is that it's a forum about sex, and that raises certain red flags. It means we have to take some legal precautions that may seem unreasonable—but we still have to do it.

Holby, an "open" board with an age limit of 18 and a big "sexual content" disclaimer on page 1 is going to attract a very different crowd, and be in fact a lot less open, than I think most people want. Innuendo is already here, and will stay, and does not require an age limit of 18. Why adopt one for all the forums when it's only needed for one?

Yes, we're really trying to protect people (in addition to covering our asses, which we must do). But we're also trying to have a forum that will be welcoming and interesting to a whole range of people, including many who would never consider joining an "adults only" message board with a sexual content warning.

I don't believe people are saying legal precautions are unreasonable either. It seems the legal requirements are going to be just fine. It's the other moral precautions or protecting people from themselves precautions that may go too far.

Since when does the disclaimer have to be big? That seems like a scare tactic to me....no offense meant! No matter what, I don't see how we'll get around having a disclaimer. That's been discussed earlier in this thread.

Yes, we'll have to have a disclaimer, but there's a difference between applying it to the whole board with an "adults only" age limit . . . and saying that we allow people over 13, but we also have a restricted forum (that no one is admitted to until they've been registered for three months, have requested it, and have certified that they're 18). The former is what I meant by "big."

What "moral precautions" have been discussed?

I decided to leave this discussion since I don't post in ToE anyway, and my personal experiences (rape victim) and situation (parent) color my judgment on how much protection is needed. I err on the side of caution, perhaps too much so.

But I must butt in just to say that Eru's cat is absolutely gorgeous.

Y'all go ahead and settle this now.

It is very discouraging to see how badly the discussion of prudent behavior is being mischaracterized.

I don't mind disagreement. Some of the posters on this board with whom I disagree severely have my utmost respect. It is irritating to see the blindness to obvious privacy and security problems, but I'll get over it. I do mind lingering on discarded suggestions, dabbling in meaningless technical details, and the willingness to ignore that there are some legal imperatives which we have no choice but to deal with. That doesn't sound like a useful way of discussing this.

I have absolutely no interest in getting rid of England. That is an absurd accusation that keeps getting repeated. I think England is worth protecting and I've spent a lot of time arguing for its protection and not said a word about elimination. I am not asking or expecting surety, I am asking for prudence. Both B77 and England owe that to the members. I don't know why this is offensive to anyone.

I see Impenitents's post as containing most of the necessary elements.

I have been trying very hard to fit prudence with individual likes and dislikes. Sometimes they conflict and sometimes they don't.

For example, Nin expressed a dislike for voting early on. I don't think I've suggested it since, and pointed out in my last proposal that it did not include voting. So far Nin hasn't acknowledged this, but instead repeats the dislike of voting. I think we all agreed to concede to your request.

So far as a separate URL, it is truly an illusion and should only be considered a technical issue related to the necessities of complying with laws and regulations. On many systems, the URL is only the doorway. Once you pass through, you may end up in dozens of places. In simple transaction processing, the transaction may "live" on each of a dozen IP addresses (underlying URLs) simultaneaously. I don't think I've brought it up since my original statement of it being a possible way around legal issues. It is only a technical method of resolving a technical or legal issue and is really irrelevant to the current discussion. It may or may not be necessary, but since there has been resistance to the use of this simple, everyday, normal IT solution, I think we shouldn't do it unless it is legally required. Again, we are complying with your request.

It seems very possible to work out a prudent arrangement that resolves the legal issues, and the privacy issues and that is a minimal intrusion.

Someone asked how one not authorized to enter England might know who is a member active in England. There is currently a very simple way to know. When that one is plugged, there is another method that takes a little work that can create the list. It works even if England is made totally invisible.

A disclaimer on the entry of ToE (or in the title of the forum) is no problem for me, I don't like sponsorship, but I said I could live with, but not votes or vetos.

I think a huge part is a problem of perception - where Prim sees objection, I see discussion. And where you see reasonnable measures, I also see each time that something that seems close to acceptable that something severer is again suggested, like the separate url less than a page ago. Who perceives wrong? Probably both....

Edited to add to IS: I'm sorry if I had not reacted to your proposition, for the procedure you describe in there for me does not seem so different from the one that Voronwë described, and at least for me there remains an element of vote in it, with the aspect of discussing a future potential member. This is like the veto we used to have. If one person in there says no, it will mean someone excluded of the forum... and this is the idea I find difficult to accept. You may call it a discussion instead of a vote or veto, the result is still the same (for me). I have said several times today, that I should not take part in this discussion and probably I was right in only those moments, and I find it astonishing that in fact Eru and me defend our positions so verbously here, for none of us is a very active poster in England.

I think I really still suffer the after effects from the votings - I was on the board right from the start and the votes and refusals connected to it, and mainly the discussions and some of the points in the discussion left such a bad taste on my memory, that I don't want to go there again. I don't want to weigh or to exclude people. I want for them the chance to proof on their actions. So - maybe this explains the nature of my refuse better. Discussing a person is like voting on him/her... or it feels like that to me.

It's half past midnight - so if there is no other post, it's just fatigue. In all senses.

Idylle, would you mind pointing out (or PMing an admin) those methods of constructing a list of England participants? If we can block those, we certainly should. (Of course, on this server, we probably can't. )

And thank you for your post.