For unrelenting attitude; violations of rules 2, 5, 7, 10, and the following two messages Annwyn has been banned for the next year. Maybe by then she will have matured enough to play nice with others in the adult world.
QuotePeople's heads aren't screwed on right on this site lately, and it's pissing me off immensely.
So I'm gonna piss off for a while too. If you wanna talk, bug me on yahoo or aim or myspace.
Maybe one day there'll be different management.
and
QuoteAERGHUAEIUGRIUHIUHGTERSHU;ier;iogjseuio;OIJSEGRT;I;OIAERG;IOJtrhsyjdtukd5ry46jxdG;OIJOJ
So now people can post paintings of nude chicks as their avatars from time to time and have whole threads full of skimpy women quizzes but i can't even show off my progress?
eff you
bull the -u-k s-it
Between this and all the negative drama she injects into the site I am done with her. I wish her well.
Oh look, it's THE Susan. :x
Well... I guess not too much suprise about the announcement.
TOS (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,2.0.html) terms 4 and 5 modified to cover future issues relating to pictures and posts.
I knew this would happen. But it is the rules of OUR site, and we all must obey them. I am sorry for Annwyn. But she brought it on herself.
Yes it is interesting to review each others progress, but that is what words are for. Pictures should be of a tasteful manner. If someone wishes to see more, that is what regular e-mail is for.
Ann will be missed, but I do hear from her on YIM. And many of us chat with her. She progress can be posted, if Susan will allow it.
:'(
We had joy, we had fun, we had seasons in the sun...
Wait, wut?
Quote from: Susan on December 23, 2008, 07:45:38 PM
Between this and all the negative drama she injects into the site I am done with her. I wish her well.
I avoided the drama by not reading her posts.
At the rate she is going, that's going to amount to a lifetime ban. You can only dance with the devil so long before the bill comes due.
I'm sorry that Annwyn left no "wiggle room" they brought this on themselves. I do hope they mature and apoligize to Susan at some point.
Sarah L.
A shame but no suprise
The one time pre-law student in me (back when I was only using my reptile brain) looked at all those words in that way. threatening tone, obscene, pornographic, intended to titillate, or depicts illegal acts are all pretty much subjective, rather than objective standards, and the illegal stuff is pretty much silly, as this is a world wide forum, and so the first question is "illegal where?"
For example, there are places where crossdressing is illegal and hence, pretty much all the pictures are illegal. Or, what if us NorCal and SoCal girls all got together here in SF and in the pictures one or more of us are puffing on a huge spliff there with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background? That's illegal in a lot of places, but not here, heck we might even have medical marijuana cards given out by the State of California. We could be authorized by the state to smoke our Mary Jane out there by the bridge - strictly medicinal, of course. And by the way, several states, recently adding Michigan, have such laws. However, its still a 'federal crime' but I don't think the DEA is out busting pot smokers on the California Coast. Matter of fact, I know they are not.
obscene, pornographic, intended to titillate Well I agree with Tasha here in that none of those pictures titillated me. The stuff of the Mexican Beauty Queen busted with all those guns and all that money, well some of those shots are pretty titillating, as they were posed, staged, and shot to be just that. I don't think any of these pictures hit near that mark. Really, if you're going to give me a hot shot of your firm ass in tight jeans, at least focus the camera.
Pornographic - not even close, as they were not intended to depict sex, there was no overt or covert sexual nature to those shots, except Audrey's which clearly caters to an established sexual fetish. Though being pornographic does not necessarily mean obscene, think the Klaw shots of Bettie Page, that are sexually very hot, but Miss Page was far from naked, in fact, she was overdressed.
I have nothing against standards, and since the only photos I've ever posted are pretty much of the light shows I work on, I don't have a dog in the fight. However, the best solution might just be to junk all that language, and have the standard be Susan's judgment, taste or desire, and let it go at that. It's her site, her rule, she decides. No different from work really - "because I'm the boss". But getting a group of people, from widely differing backgrounds to all have a say is problematic. And using that kind of language is also problematic. After all, the closest the Supreme Court of the United States could come to defining 'pornography' is "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it." Which, oddly enough, is also pretty much the definition of art.
Obscene, gosh, I read the news, from all over the world. I see pictures from Darfur, of living conditions in 3rd world countries, and of people on our own streets, of Abu Ghraib, and wonder how any picture, of any person, in their underwear could ever be considered obscene in contrast. That must be just me. I guess I'm a bit burned out on the whole "Naked Humans Are Obscene" thing. Mostly I find such naked human shots far more humorous than obscene. And more than that, the stuff I find in the backgrounds of such shots often tell me more about the person than their posts do.
So just say, Susan will make the decision, and let it stand at that.
I know annwyn kinda gave me some imature arguments but i think that maybe a year is kinda long. Oh well i am not sure exactly what they did but the youth many times need guidance from those of us who are older. Anyway thats my thoughts and feelings. For any of you in touch with annwyn please let them know i care for annwyn and they are welcome to reach out to me anytime at postoplesbian@aol.com Its my concern that the youth take things like this too hard and well they can be fragile and do irational things which i am sure we all don't want to ever happen as we love our youth so very dearly. They are our future :)
Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2008, 12:48:09 AM
At the rate she is going, that's going to amount to a lifetime ban. You can only dance with the devil so long before the bill comes due.
You calling susan the devil? :o :D
I'm not surprised; annwyn been's burning the candle at both ends now for awhile. I hope she finds happiness in her life.
Hardly, its Annwyn whose doing that dance, I've watched it a bunch, almost never ends well. If your standing atop a fuel tanker lighting matches, sooner or later, it will catch fire.
Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2008, 10:37:32 AM
The one time pre-law student in me (back when I was only using my reptile brain) looked at all those words in that way. threatening tone, obscene, pornographic, intended to titillate, or depicts illegal acts are all pretty much subjective, rather than objective standards, and the illegal stuff is pretty much silly, as this is a world wide forum, and so the first question is "illegal where?"
The answer to that is quite simple... in the state where Susan's ISP is located.
Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2008, 12:48:09 AM
At the rate she is going, that's going to amount to a lifetime ban. You can only dance with the devil so long before the bill comes due.
There is only one person that has ever happened to.
Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2008, 10:37:32 AM
The one time pre-law student in me (back when I was only using my reptile brain) looked at all those words in that way. threatening tone, obscene, pornographic, intended to titillate, or depicts illegal acts are all pretty much subjective, rather than objective standards, and the illegal stuff is pretty much silly, as this is a world wide forum, and so the first question is "illegal where?"
Doesn't matter in a court of law.
Susan's is private property, you are allowed only the rights she affords you and all decisions regarding what is which are hers alone to decide. If she wants someone gone she needs no reason.
Bottom line is don't push. If you question posting it, don't, or get the staff to approve it first. If they approve it and she doesn't at least she will not take it out on you.
To give people at least rough guidelines for what is and is not allowed. If there was no TOS, how would people know what they should question posting? Trial and error?
Same reason we have laws in the real world, it establishes a set of guidelines people need to follow in order to get along.
Some people will always try and bend or push the rules, at least with a tos, you know where that line is. Most forums make the rules more strict than they actually are for a bit of breathing room so anyone bending them a bit is likely to be okay.
What I proposed would only effect a few items, not the corpus of the entire POS, and I agree that Susan's is private property, which is why I suggested the most expedient means to the end, in keeping within the perimeters of the proprietary interests, but without impacting the fiduciary aspects of the property as a whole*, but a means that at least has some continuity from decision to decision.
* - I got an "I can be a lawyer" kit with my Frosted Flakes once.
Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2008, 05:18:58 PM
* - I got an "I can be a lawyer" kit with my Frosted Flakes once.
I think they were passing out those kits, except the label was "I am an officer of the bank," when I worked for Wells Fargo.
Wus tat you on top of the wagon when it come a rollin' into town?
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on December 24, 2008, 09:42:34 AM
i have a question. well, more than one actually.
the modified rule states any picture or post made "with the intent to titillate"
is this an objective or a subjective standard? is the titillation in the mind of the poster or the viewer? since it has the qualifier "intent" i am assuming it is the poster's purpose for posting which is the determiner, but what if that intent is innocent and the post or picture titillates regardless? violation?
for example, audrey's shibari thread. while she no longer has those pictures up, i found them to be extremely hot; and i dont believe that was her intent. a lot of different people here have a lot of different fetishes, does this mean if i know a member has a foot fetish and post pictures of my feet, it is a violation if that was my intent?
some of the quizzes and links are quite risque; as are many of the topics in the sexuality forum. if i post about something that turns me on, is it a violation? steph posts fairly graphic accounts of her sexual encounters. violation?
i am not questioning the need for such policies, only concerned that if there is going to be such a standard, that there are enough guidelines set out to know what is in compliance and what is not.
i am assuming that moderators will make these determinations. yet, i would imagine that if there were a survey accomplished, each one would have a different definition of what was titillating.
again, i am not questioning the tos, or debating the need for such a revision, only requesting clarification of how to follow it.
thanks!
We must remember that this site is a support site open to everyone on the net. Folks from every walk of life and age group can login including children and their parents and we cannot risk our site being blocked because of inappropriate photographs and yes there those who would have seen the photos in the topic in question as okay but then there would be those who wouldn't. This site has been attacked many times in the past by hackers who see Susan's as a place for perverts etc. So we do need to be judicious in what is posted. We do have an area for the posting of pictures.
Members who are not sure if a picture is appropriate should simply email Staff with a copy of the picture for opinion.
Steph
Quote from: Lisbeth on December 24, 2008, 01:19:43 PM
Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2008, 12:48:09 AM
At the rate she is going, that's going to amount to a lifetime ban. You can only dance with the devil so long before the bill comes due.
There is only one person that has ever happened to.
Lisbeth, I think tekla had something a lot more grim in mind. :(
QuoteAERGHUAEIUGRIUHIUHGTERSHU;ier;iogjseuio;OIJSEGRT;I;OIAERG;IOJtrhsyjdtukd5ry46jxdG;OIJOJ
So now people can post paintings of nude chicks as their avatars from time to time and have whole threads full of skimpy women quizzes but i can't even show off my progress?
eff you
bull the -u-k s-it
Maybe she will take some spelling classes too before returning.
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on December 24, 2008, 09:42:34 AM
the modified rule states any picture or post made "with the intent to titillate"
is this an objective or a subjective standard? is the titillation in the mind of the poster or the viewer? since it has the qualifier "intent" i am assuming it is the poster's purpose for posting which is the determiner, but what if that intent is innocent and the post or picture titillates regardless? violation?
The judgement is in the hands of the moderation staff and as such if you feel they are incorrect then simply pm me and I will look into the situation.
In this case Annwyn posted pictures of her in bra and panties. There was no reason for doing so.
Another example would be sexually explicit lingerie pictures, they would run afoul of this rule.
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on December 24, 2008, 09:42:34 AM
for example, audrey's shibari thread. while she no longer has those pictures up, i found them to be extremely hot; and i dont believe that was her intent. a lot of different people here have a lot of different fetishes, does this mean if i know a member has a foot fetish and post pictures of my feet, it is a violation if that was my intent?
Again the moderation staff will make the determination. Any objection or issues pm me. If you object to a posting or photograph use the report this post option and let the moderation staff do their job and review it.
Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on December 24, 2008, 09:42:34 AM
some of the quizzes and links are quite risque; as are many of the topics in the sexuality forum. if i post about something that turns me on, is it a violation? steph posts fairly graphic accounts of her sexual encounters. violation?
Sexuality forum has a bit looser rules however I will still have objection to sexually explicit photographs in that forum. Call me a prude but this will keep this site available to more users of all age groups.
Here is what I told the forum staff...
QuoteBy having material like that on this site it makes it more likely that we will be blocked by parental filtering companies, foreign countries, and so on. Dressed pictures are fine. But bras, panties, underwear, and sexually explicit lingerie is not.
Long nightgowns or pj's which provide adequate coverage are also fine.
......Merry Christmas Susan!
:icon_hug:
Chrissty
Wait... you can't show pictures of "progress"?
Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2008, 06:09:05 PM
Wus tat you on top of the wagon when it come a rollin' into town?
"The DAR has sent a cannon for the court house square."
Actually I worked for First Bank at the time they were buying Wells. It was a big problem at the time that the merger made Wells such a big competitor that other banks didn't want to use their armored car services anymore. Opened up the armed courier market to lots of second-tier companies.
Quote from: Mister on December 25, 2008, 12:20:21 PM
Wait... you can't show pictures of "progress"?
I'm sure that F-to-M post-mastectomy pictures are just fine. On the other hand, I wouldn't want pictures of my boobs hanging out there for just anyone to look at.
Quote from: Mister on December 25, 2008, 12:20:21 PM
Wait... you can't show pictures of "progress"?
Progress can be shown just fine while still being clothed, I'd think. ???
Hi, I just come about this thread, I know Annwyn was being a pain in the butt but I did not know she had been banned until now. Sorry to hear that, but as someone has already said, I believe she has been baiting for this to happen for some time. But I also do agree with Postoplesbian.
Cindy
Quote from: Steph on December 24, 2008, 06:49:45 PM
This site has been attacked many times in the past by hackers who see Susan's as a place for perverts etc.
This place will be seen that way, regardless of the content.
Plenty of people find transsexuals 'perverted' without any provocation.
Quote from: TamTam on December 25, 2008, 03:32:56 PM
Progress can be shown just fine while still being clothed, I'd think. ???
Oh for
sure!"Look, I've had SRS, you can tell from how tight my jeans are in this pic!!!111one"
[ /sarcasm]
Well I don't think I would care to show my privates even if they were on active duty....errrr I mean even I was 20 years younger. I'm happy with the results and it appears that a few elder gents appear to like the scenery in the summer anyway.
I haven't noticed any other photos of Audry outside of the ones in the photo sharing thread.
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,35756.100.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,35756.100.html)
She 's a good kid I been keeping in touch with her and she is working hard on her new career as an RN and working on getting her surgery this spring I believe. I wish she were my kid, I would be proud to have her as my kid. But then there are a few other here I am fond of as well. :D
Cindy
Quote from: Vexing on December 28, 2008, 12:18:34 AM
Quote from: Steph on December 24, 2008, 06:49:45 PM
This site has been attacked many times in the past by hackers who see Susan's as a place for perverts etc.
This place will be seen that way, regardless of the content.
Plenty of people find transsexuals 'perverted' without any provocation.
Quote from: Vexing on December 28, 2008, 12:21:49 AM
Quote from: TamTam on December 25, 2008, 03:32:56 PM
Progress can be shown just fine while still being clothed, I'd think. ???
Oh for sure!
"Look, I've had SRS, you can tell from how tight my jeans are in this pic!!!111one"
[ /sarcasm]
The rules are in place not only to protect the site but to protect the members. Joining this site is completely voluntary, and posting is a privilege that is granted not a right. Of course there are members who find it difficult to follow the guide lines and those members are encouraged to search for alternate sites.
Steph
Haha Thanks Cindy, Im irritated because I got my application sent in last week and Christmas is slowing everything up. I want to get my date set already. lol.
Yea Holidays I find kind of annoying to when one is trying to get some business done. Would you believe I just sent for my new birth certificate three weeks ago, I wouldn't of bothered except I need the right marker for a passport and I am planning on going across the border a few more times before I kick the bucket, Already bought the acreage for the farm, just needed a bucket. ;D
Say I do pray you get your date set soon and email me when you do, OK? Also sending prayers that you do well on the RN course.
Bleedin internet service was out for three hours. "Gaaaaaaads!!" how boring.
Cindy
Quote from: Susan on December 25, 2008, 02:21:24 AM
Here is what I told the forum staff...
QuoteBy having material like that on this site it makes it more likely that we will be blocked by parental filtering companies, foreign countries, and so on. Dressed pictures are fine. But bras, panties, underwear, and sexually explicit lingerie is not.
Long nightgowns or pj's which provide adequate coverage are also fine.
OK. I get the gist though, that a photo in a swimsuit/bikini would be ok in most circumstances. I mean, you can wear that in public most places without getting arrested. Is that the standard? Does it depend, in part, on the setting of the photo (i.e., beach vs. bedroom) and/or pose struck?
I know you have to have a "you know it it when you see it" standard, like the U.S. supreme court, but if there is a blanket rule against swimwear, it would be nice to know in advance. Thanks.
It is kind of sad, well, if not sad then at least a shame, that people who need the most help have the hardest time getting it - and frequently through their own actions - and people who need the least, get the most, often by doing nothing at all.
Quote from: tekla on December 29, 2008, 12:52:19 AM
It is kind of sad, well, if not sad then at least a shame, that people who need the most help have the hardest time getting it - and frequently through their own actions - and people who need the least, get the most, often by doing nothing at all.
Yeah. I worry for Annwyn very, very much. ó_ò
Mina.
Quote from: mina.m->-bleeped-<-ie link=topic=52303.msg324812#msg324812 date=1230536017
Yeah. I worry for Annwyn very, very much. ó_ò
Don't. She's actually one of the most well adjusted young women I know. Causing drama and bucking against authority is pretty normal for a barely post-teen female.
She is, and will be, fine.
Cheeeeez wiz I been a system buster since the hippie days. Still don't adhere to it well but I have to be careful if I don't want my old backside in some backwoods drunk tank and never see daylight again then come up a thousand years from now as bubbling crude in some remote swamp land. ;D
Cindy
Well I hope your right. But I doubt it. The American South ain't NZ - people die down there, be just another accident statistic. Going about armed with intent in a social setting were that's damn close to the norm is walking a fine line, particularly when impulse control is kind of sketch. And this ain't the Summer of Love nether. Back when CBC and me were hippies you could hitchhike most of this country, that's a death wish now. What once were treated as "youthful indiscretions" are now, in a zero tolerance world, treated as felonies. Putting out the fire with gasoline sometimes works, and people achieve spectacular success. But even when they don't, it sure lights up the night.
Quote from: Vexing on December 29, 2008, 01:56:50 AMShe's actually one of the most well adjusted young women I know.
You must know a rough crowd. ;)
QuoteShe is, and will be, fine.
I very much hope you are right Vex.
Mina.
Quote from: mina.m->-bleeped-<-ie link=topic=52303.msg324955#msg324955 date=1230559595
You must know a rough crowd. ;)
You must live in a convent.