Are Messageboards too public

[Nyghtfall]

No one is talking about limiting your posts.

Ah. Thank you for clarifying.

[JohnM]

I would say no. Messageboards, forums, and blogs exist by the thousands. They contain subject matter of all ranges. With the exception of some celebrity forums, most are free. They are free because in most cases they exist to help promote or to facilitate community of individuals with a common interest. However, with little exception, memberships would hinder the growth of a forum--especially in this community. For this community to survive and prosper, new folks have to wonder in here from time to time. While a few might pay for the privilege, most would not. Most, will simply find a forum that does not require that. For instance, if this forum did---poof...gone, or very very slow.

I agree with Peter. As long as a webmaster follows that guidelines of the CIPA, your doing more then you need to anyhow. Simple keywords and a warning page is sufficient. Most browsers in their simplest form have child filters that will easily block this and other forums. If a minor circumvents it because of determination to see what is here, then, there is not much that can be done. In addition, simply add Robots.txt to the scripting and avoid webcrawlers, search engine and archive listing.

In reality, more damage would be done getting a merchant account to bill the membership that then would be subject to chargebacks from minors using parents cards to gain access.

JohnM

[EvilBilly]

I suppose another step that messageboards/forums could take would be to restrict content that is posted. No pictures depicting nudity and violence and no adult language. But would that cause more harm than good?

[JohnM]

Oh, I would definitely agree with enrollment to post. That does not stop minors from seeing photos.

On my forum, non-members can only view a few of the boards. They cannot post. I wish there was an option to make it so they cannot see images or links posted. That would be ideal.

Still, that would not stop a minor from registering, but taking that additional step may detour more. Honestly, I think it is hardly an issue. This community is so small compared to the mainstream porn world that instances of that are going to be minute in comparison.

If your a minor and your on this forum, I am sad that your parents are not more involved in your life.

JohnM

[Nightposter]

Gentlemen,
The topic here is:
Are Messageboards too public?

Both of you, Play nice, Stick to the topic at hand.
Quit bringing up things from other boards.

If you must continue bringing up the past take it to private messaging.

Consider both of you warned!

[Nightposter]

On my forum, non-members can only view a few of the boards. They cannot post. I wish there was an option to make it so they cannot see images or links posted. That would be ideal.

Only Members can post here, non members can not see attachments, additionally, only members can view the Video share forum.

Still, that would not stop a minor from registering, but taking that additional step may detour more. Honestly, I think it is hardly an issue. This community is so small compared to the mainstream porn world that instances of that are going to be minute in comparison.

If your a minor and your on this forum, I am sad that your parents are not more involved in your life.

JohnM

[kevin67]

I read both of these posts (TPAP Woes and KHP , The Truth On The Lies) and I see no real connection between the question asked and Pemmpaul's explanation or evidence (whatever).

The KHP thread was locked and should not have been brought up. The flame war should not have been brought up either, since Pennpaul you admit it is unimportant, then why mention it?
The topic question was a very good one, but the threads are definitely off topic and we should get back on the topic at hand.

Paul- Since Geno is not in the mix anymore and therer is no need to connect him with this thread. If he did engineer the thread, then it is better if we ignore it.

In my own opinion, both DS and FF claim to be boards which, for the most part, promote free speechand that concept should be preserved .I agree with Pennpaul that underage people should not have access to the materials posted on FF or Bluestone Video. I don't write scenarios for the under 18 crowd, and I don't believe that Pennpaul does either. Many of the youth of today have a great working knowledge of the computer and can find ways to tune into the site, even if they are pay sites.

I also agree with John M that it's hard enough to get a credit card company to accept us as customers, even when we are disguised as something else. Adults should have some place to express themselves without feeling that minors are watching over their shoulders, and they shouldn't have to pay for that privilage.


WARNING

Now I am going to issue a warning of my own, and I plan to have zero tolerance. Get back on topic or I will simply shut it down.

[Den-CnB]

Regarding the original topic it was addresses under COPA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Onli ... ection_Act

Child Online Protection Act
From Wikipedia,

Not to be confused with Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, abbreviated "COPPA".
The Child Online Protection Act[1] (COPA)[2] was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The United States federal courts have ruled that the law violates the constitutional protection of free speech, and therefore have blocked it from taking effect. As of 2009, the law remains unconstitutional and unenforced.The law was part of a series of efforts by US lawmakers legislating over Internet pornography. Parts of the earlier and much broader Communications Decency Act had been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; COPA was a direct response to that decision, narrowing the range of material covered. COPA only limits commercial speech and only affects providers based within the United States.

COPA required all commercial distributors of "material harmful to minors" to restrict their sites from access by minors. "Material harmful to minors" was defined as material that by "contemporary community standards" was judged to appeal to the "prurient interest" and that showed sexual acts or nudity (including female breasts). This is a much broader standard than obscenity........

Dennis

[Bluestone]

Just back from a weekend out of town with limited Internet access.

As you may know, I recently changed the "Pulped Fiction" story forum to board member only access, just like the "Video Share" forum. Of course, these areas are still free, since board membership is free, but board membership is also restricted to adults.

Let's look at Peter's super gallery of photos that was recently posted on this forum. Who feels that explicit photos such as this should be moved and in future be posted on the "Video Share" forum, which could be renamed the "Video and Image Share Forum"? I agree that the main discusions should be open to the public, but perhaps explicit photos should be posted on a board members only area of the site.

Comments?

Blue

[Peter]

Let's look at Peter's super gallery of photos that was recently posted on this forum. Who feels that explicit photos such as this should be moved and in future be posted on the "Video Share" forum, which could be renamed the "Video and Image Share Forum"?

I'm down with that.

[Dalila di Capri]

Same for my photos...I am so sexy that anyone under 18 is likely to have his head explode if he sees my pictures

Seriously confining these photos to more private access shows that the site owner is taking things seriously.

I am also with John M regarding the idea of a paid site ofeering one type of forum for no members and a more detailed forum for members. There is nothing wrong with that because in the end we producers need to think about business or we can't continue to film films for you fans.

Baci

[Nightposter]

I have no problem with "Adult Images" being posted to a Multimedia forum, Given that, the "all topic" forum should be the only one non members can read. If that forum interests them, they should then go thru the membership routine and join.

I really don't want to get into the pay membership deal for a forum...Gman tried that and look what happened there (we're in the self created mess we are in now )

[EvilBilly]

Pennpaul wrote on DS:

My recent posting about messageboards being too public has caused enrollment requirements at FF in order to view adult materials or the lock outs already exiisted. In any event, Dalila, one has to be logged in to see your very erotic stills. Yes, they are worth the enrollment. However, I suggest that you consider posting your materials on DS. Linking is not the best idea. Plus Geno will be truly enthralled by your photos.

4P

Interesting that you endorse restrictions on this site, then suggest posting on DS due to the lack of restrictions. Also interesting is that you posted this topic here and not on DS where one would think equal if not greater feedback would be gained. As if you are dropping breadcrumbs for some search engine savvy folks to cast this site under a negative lens.

I really hope I'm wrong.

[Bluestone]

Hey Guys,

I have moved Peter's Photo gallery to the renamed "Video and Image Share" forum which is limited to registered members. This was done with Peter's consent, because there is a lot of very explicit material in this gallery. So, if anyone has explicit photos that you wish to share, they should be posted there. As for the definition of explicit photos, I am not talking about super sexy photos of Dalila or even topless photos, but perhaps full nudity where the genitals are clearly displayed.

The "What's New at FF and Silk Videos" forum may have topless photos of mainstream actresses or even nude photos of Petra in the shower, but I do not consider such photos to be so explicit as to require that they be posted on the restricted "Video and Image Share" forum. As for the "Necro Media" forum, I do note some fairly explicit advertising there; however, I am not prepared to censor how permitted advertisers promote their sites. I would suggest, however, that links to explicit material posted on their own sites might be both more appropriate and a way to drive traffic to their sites. Then, it is up to them to post warnings on their sites' entrance doors. Thoughts?

Finally, the FF board will never to restricted to paysite members. This experiment failed with the old Femmegore site, and would be counterproductive to my whole reason for creating this site for the community in general. The FF board must always be free with portions open to the public. Not to worry about me going bankrupt as a result. Not a chance of that happening

Blue

[Nightposter]

I have reviewed the statements made by evilbilly and by KHP.
I find them interesting and ask the same questions...

What are you up to?

You are the one "stirring the pot" here, other places this is called 'trolling"
Your statements almost demand responses, and when they don't get a response you like, you start calling out the moderators.

You have been warned twice to knock this off -
The postings will stand - If you do not like this, I'm sure you will go running to another board to complain about us - however - unlike the other boards, all postings here will remain, so that those interested can come in and discover the truth, and make their own decision.

FINAL WARNING HAS BEEN ISSUED!