board77

Well I am not conveying my thoughts accurately, because you aren't fully getting what I am saying.

There are two issues here. Actually three. Legal protection for us as a message board, protecting people that may post here, and the comfort level or moral objections of the subject. It seems to me that the three are becoming blended, when they are three separate issues.

First I don't think there is anyone here that is advising against doing what is necessary legally. I'll get around to what our obligations may or may not be in a minute.

My point as far as protecting people here is not to suggest that we need make this an adult only board. My point is that I don't believe people need protecting from TOE more than any other part of the board. The potential danger is not limited to TOE, and in fact I believe that other portions of this board could prove to be more dangerous than TOE.
There is a certain stigma associated with sex talk, and in my opinion, it is just that. A stigma. The real dangers are everywhere, not just TOE. So if in fact we are aiming to protect, then just by insisting TOE is hidden or whatever, separate, invite only, etc....
is ignoring the fact that there are other dangers in the other forums. Policing ourselves imo is the best preventative medicine we can use, and my suggestion is that we incorporate that board wide.
For the record, I am not advocating for or against any methods suggested here. I am just pointing out some potential flaws, and hopefully a solution or two.

As for the legal aspects of this, I have no idea. We are not soliciting anything here. We are not supplying any form of entertainment. As far as I can tell people are discussing their views on sex, and their experiences. That is a far different category than mature sites. There are more than a few medical sites that deal with the issue of sex, and there are no age limits as far as I can see. In fact some sites have instant open registrations. No warnings or age limits. Nothing.

Here is a disclaimer from a "sex advice" messageboard.....

This site is intended for adults, and topics may contain sexuality and /or other mature 'adult' themes. By viewing pages that are identified as featuring adult content, you agree that it is legal for you at your age and in your present location to view such content, and that you view any adult content by your own consent.
Here is the link. I didn't read any of the forums, but the titles are explicit.
http://www.allsexadvice.com/forum/index.php
I certainly think we are closer to that forum than this one...

http://langerland.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1

That one has no disclaimer, and I would not for a million dollars be associated with it.
Up to this point I have heard no definitive statements regarding our actual legal obligations. I see too many conflicting things out there on the web, and I am indeed still confused. I want to hear from a lawyer who specializes in this type of thing.

As far as the third issue, that is a divisive one, and there is no way to please everyone. Whatever decision is reached will leave posters in its wake. The third issue being how comfortable people are with this topic being part of this board at all.

To try and move this forward, I suggest the discussion be broken down in three separate pieces.
First find out where the concensus is regarding the forum to begin with.
Next discuss the legal ramifications and are real obligations. Then move on to methods of protection. Keep the issues separate.

Again I have no real interest in this forum. Only an interest in trying to keep together this fragile existence. There has to be room for compromise, and there has to be some weight given to the fact that up until this time we have allowed this forum.

One more point. I highly doubt that we are going to draw very many unknown people here. I believe that it will be more word of mouth than anything. I just can't envision people Googling and joining us out of the blue. Regardless of our content.

Nin,

I think you are still misunderstanding my proposal.

My proposal was very simple

- allow someone to be referred/sponsored

- allow a public discussion

- after the discussion, if 2 more members active in England are willing to still sponsor the candidate, let them in.

It's the last in a series of small steps to discourage someone from thinking there is the possibility of easy prey in our Board. If they have to identify themselves when joining the board, wait some period, behave reasonably in that period, expose themselves to the possibility of public discussion, and be accepted by three current members, you aren't likely to be dealing with anyone acting on impulse, and its intrusive enough that the less impulsive will find easier prey elsewhere.

It might be possible to misconstrue the 2 additional sponsors as some form of voting, but no "nays" are allowed and it doesn't take a majority. I don't consider it voting.

Holby, Nin, Eru, in light of your comments, I've gone back to my original proposal to rethink it and would now like to suggest this:

(actually, I'm using Voronwe's post as the basis because he reworded my proposal to make it both shorter and clearer. )

1. A statement on the front page and also on the registration form will state:

Quote:

Board 77 strives to be a welcoming community of high standards for all posters, young and old alike. We are a member moderated message board. We believe in being respectful and courteous to all members. Adult language is allowed, but generally occurs no more frequently than in real life. We do, however, require that members be at least thirteen years of age before joining. This board also contains an age restricted forum that deals with adult subject matter. The contents of this forum are not accessible to members who are under the age of eighteen.

that's tinwe's original wording

2. All new Board registrations will require affirmation that applicant is over 13 years of age and request their date of birth.

3. A confirmation email from the member's registration email address will be required before membership is activated.

4. ToE forum header would be visible in the index but access restricted to those who have specific permission to do so. The forum description should probably reflect the statement text, to whit: "Adult themes; not accessible to those under the age of eighteen."

5. Once a member reaches 3 months and 100 posts they will become eligible to access the ToE forum by simply asking an admin for permission.

6. Before permission is activated, an email with the ToE sticky note information will be forwarded to the new member, who will be required to agree to the terms in that sticky by return email.

We really should revisit that sticky and make sure it spells out clearly and concisely the expectations of ToE posters

7. The members of the ToE forum itself will be vigilant for inappropriate behaviour such as an adult "grooming" a minor or other behaviour blatantly taking advantage of someone who is emotionally vulnerable (no need to spell that out; we all know when a line has been crossed that makes one cringe).

This should probably be in the sticky; even if not one single ToE poster ever takes any form of action against anyone, the mere existence of the text giving explicit permission for people to act on their conscience will be warning enough for anyone who may consider it, I think

So.

What do you think?

This would do away with explicit vetting - but if they've made it through 3 months and 100 posts, we would have some broad idea of the person anyway.

Imp, I cannot speak for ToE posters, but I must thank you for this beautifully clear proposal. As a non-ToE member of B77, I would be quite satisfied with this, assuming it meets the legal requirements.

Idylle's sponsorship procedure, which I agree is not a vote, would give the ToE membership a bit more control over who joins them, and if that is important to them, they should consider including Idylle's idea in your procedure.

Your post gives a concise summary of an excellent structure. Speaking for myself, I think we have floundered long enough; it's time to move this discussion toward a definite conclusion. I hope we can all be constructive. I will certainly do my best.

I have no problem with that either.
But like Prim I have no direct interest.

I'm fine with either sponsorship or discussion - both suggestions sound fine.

- marginal (occasional poster) member of ToE

Holby, just to pick up on your (very good) points about the flirting thread and PMs.

PMs are pretty well impossible to police, (as is ordinary email). Unless there is something in the TOS that says ‘you can’t PM offensive or threatening messages’ so that if someone does, then there’s a hook to hang them on, then it’s open slather. (Email is caught by law, in some jurisdictions…I’m not sure about the US.)

Flirting and innuendo in threads – well, again, I haven’t dipped in there, but ‘flirting and innuendo’ is not quite the same as adult discussion about sex, which is what I understood ToE to be about. Inappropriate behaviour in the Turf threads (if it was actually considered to be inappropriate as opposed innocuous) would most effectively be dealt with as part of the TOS for the whole site. ToE, because of the nature of the discussions allegedly taking place there tends to increase the odds/ risks,/whatever quite a bit. This is why the age of the posters is suggested as 18 and up, unlike the other areas of B77

However, you are probably quite right, the numbers of children on B77 are unlikely to mean it’s an obvious hunting ground for predators. But I would also have said that of TORC, and apparently there were incidents there.

Message boards are a very intense form of communication. As Alatar said, it is very easy for intent to be misread, and for relationships to become distorted. The impact of that is not limited to younger posters, but they are the most vulnerable. It’s an element in this form of ‘faceless’ communication that is completely absent in other forms. So should some action be taken? And, if so, what should they be?

It does go back to the principle of B77 being self-moderated, and the need for all posters to look out for each other, doesn’t it?. The statement proposed for the top of the site stresses the consideration posters should give to each other.

Holby, the legal aspects are just not clear – and that’s even to me who works with one small part of the relevant (Australian) law. It is very difficult to give cast-iron, absolute guarantees about anything to do with the Internet. However, I would caution against basing our approach on what other sites do or don’t do. I think the approach suggested for ToE is good, and it is now perhaps a matter of working out the presentation aspects rather than focusing on the philosophical ones.

Finally, Eruname asked if AOL would be liable if a person met a predator through their chat rooms. Again, the legal position is not clear cut, but obviously MSN considered that there was a likelihood that they would be. Which is why they closed all their chat rooms – even the moderated ones - in October 2003.

(I really, really need to catch up on the progress of the convention, and the charter and all that. I keep running in, catching up on a night’s furious posting by everyone else, quickly posting a response which may or may not say something useful, and then running away again. It is not an ideal way to contribute!)

Another non-Englander chiming in.

I like the wording of the statement (assuming it's fine with the legals). One question I have - can/should we put somewhere in there a warning that the board is not to be used for illegal activity, etc? Perhaps that would help get across the message that while "adult discussion" is OK, hard-core stuff is not (which, from what I'm hearing, it isn't), and maybe that would discourage some of the visitors we are worried about.

Imp, that's perfect.

IS, thanks for repeating that.

But I know how Nin feels and I agree with her. There may be no voting but there is still the discussion. I don't think we have any sort of right to discuss a person's value behind their back. It felt wrong (for me and many others) during the invites, it will feel wrong in ToE.

I know that discussion would have a noble cause but it's unfair to the person discussed. Suddenly this person is the main topic for all the ToE members- some of who might not even know that person....it's like, we don't want X to see our intimate discussions, and yet we're okay talking about them, publically, in a very intimate way because we're talking about what kind of person they are and whether they can be trusted. Not fair. It will hurt and divide people.

The system I would agree to is one where the person needs three sponsors, but there is no discussing them among the other board members. I think Nin would agree too, if I understood what she said- she does not like the idea of sponsors much either but is willing to compromise.

It is the discussion we have a problem with.


edited because i kant spel.

It sounds like we are getting close to agreement.

Imp's proposal sounds like a good compromise. I would vote yes.

I also would agree to Imp's proposal as stated.

Likewise

I like Imp's text as well and would vote for that, with only one very minor comment: I would prefer it if the period of waiting were 3 months OR 100 posts, whatever came first - not both conditions.

Me too - and yova, just wanted to say how much I like that pic of yours.

Rodia got it all right, btw, it's the discussion about another person behind his or her back - I can't handle that.

I would eventually suggest that for newly registering members who give a birthdate under 18 ToE would not even be visible, not even the existence.

The reason for the 100 posts is so that other posters can get a feel for the poster.

The three month limit is to deter the problem people - the lechers, etc. They will never have the patience for it and will go to easier hunting grounds. I mean, how many days does it take for Prim to make 100 posts? Also, the wait of three months has two other effects.

Firstly, it gives them a chance to get a feel for us (outside ToE), but most importantly it will place a value on ToE in their minds and they will less likely mess up the forum's atmosphere.

Two months would also do, I guess.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a veto - it could prove more devisive than protective in the long run. *Thinks* OK, I'm not in favor of it at all.

As to being able to see who's in ToE, well really, who cares?

"Prim's making a post in ToE!"
"Really? Is she posting or just reading?"
"Dunno. But she's in ToE!"
"Which thread is she in? Does it involve monkeys? S/M bondage?"
"Dunno. But she's in ToE!"
"Well I see Prim in a new light. It turns out she's over 18 after all."
"Dunno. But she's in...oh...yeah."

I still like three months. If we're not going to have sponsorship, the least we can do is attempt to bore potential jerkoffs to death.

Prim really doesn't read ToE, but Prim pops into the forum every couple of days to read thread titles to make sure there are no threads titled "Die, Mother****er!" or similar obvious disruptions.

Just doing the job, as I do for every other forum I don't regularly read. So far everyone has been boringly well-behaved.

How about ten weeks? It's two and a half months....

(That's a helvetic compromise)

You meant "Die, Motherfucker!", right, because a thread called "Die, Motherf***er!" would just get laughed at.