Drum roll please...Results so far.. re: Adults ONLY Message Board- Page 11

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 1:33pm

I'm 18, and honestly in addition to not really feeling a need for a separate place to post, I certainly wouldn't pay for it even if I was in favor of it. So my vote is no.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 1:35pm

"If you haven’t noticed, you’ve made you point."

Wow.
I think that comment by Jose' pretty much says it all.
I still stand by my comment that making an 'Adults ONLY Board' is in no way different than making a 'Homosexuals ONLY Board', a 'Heterosexuals ONLY Board', a 'WASP's ONLY Board', etc.
It is all, in some form or another, segregation.

Updated On: 2/27/05 at 01:35 PM

[sweetiedarlinmia]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 1:38pm

Over 18 and Voting No. I like us all as one big, not always so happy, family. The separate threads are enough for me and it seems were working just fine. Plus the word "free" is so much more appealing to me that whole concept of paying to chat.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 1:38pm

Priest,

However, a board for "homosexuals" would have no basis in reality. Age constraints are set up for a reason.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 1:44pm

Nice to see that Jose' has developed an elitist streak to match his ever-growing ego and simultaneously managed to divide the board on an issue based on age-discrimination. Bravo Jose!

[Plum]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 1:44pm

... Updated On: 2/27/05 at 01:44 PM

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:10pm

[DAME]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:11pm

For the record; this hussy voted NO!

Updated On: 2/27/05 at 02:11 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:13pm

Beaver - That made my day - well done.

I don't understand the point of this either. Just as I don't understand the avatar restrictions or the ban of shirtless pictures. There seems to be a trend here.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:23pm

there is a avatar restrictions and a ban on shirtless icons? Hmmm. Are these explained anywhere?

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:30pm

No Dame. It's just arbitrarily decided based on what the moderators (and one over-zealous "QuizMaster") deems to be appropriate and inappropriate content.

Updated On: 2/27/05 at 02:30 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:31pm

That is too bad.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:36pm

Also, if votes are being conducted via Jose's e-mail and PM's, no one can verify the results, and that is a problem. Something tells me this is going to end the way he wants it, regardless of what anyone has to say about it.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:38pm

There isn't a ban on shirtless icons. Plenty of shirtless icons have lasted for months without deletions. The inappropriate pictures standard is a mysterious one, to say the least.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:40pm

I still thought that some's avatar's were being deleted.

Did you get to see Tiff's last avatar (that was of course deleted right away) with the bowflex ad? It was brilliant.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:41pm

Yes, some people's avatars were deleted. However, reasons aren't usually given for deletion, and like I said, others aren't deleted at all. It looks pretty arbitrary to me, as opposed to an actual "no shirtlessness" rule. Updated On: 2/27/05 at 02:41 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:43pm

yes it was. I wonder though had it not had those additional comments if it would have still been deleted given the fact that it is an ad that runs regularly on this site.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:46pm

Certain shirtless icons seem to be okay. While others are singled out and deleted almost immediately. So, while there may not specifically be a ban against them, there certainly seems to be some sort of double-standard at play.

Updated On: 2/27/05 at 02:46 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:53pm

I wouldn't protest too much if all shirtless avs were banned, but we should be able to have a "muy angry"-style thread where PG-13-rated shirtless (and cleavage) pictures can be posted. That way anyone who doesn't want to look at that kind of stuff doesn't have to, and those who do...can. And it would be a consistent standard. Updated On: 2/27/05 at 02:53 PM

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:55pm

But it's not your board. Rob and Craig are allowed to do whatever they want on their boards.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 2:56pm

"Rob and Craig are allowed to do whatever they want on their boards."

My point exactly...

[etoile]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 3:03pm

Can I change my vote to a NO Whinnying Board? I would pay big time for that.

You know I haven't seen anything that stops anyone from creating their own boards. In fact, Rob seems to let people shill for their own sites all the time.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 3:05pm

Of course they can do what they want. When have I ever said otherwise? This particular item has been put up for a vote, though, so I don't see why discussion should be out of the question.

No whinnying, ya damn horses... Updated On: 2/27/05 at 03:05 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 3:05pm

And there are members who have gone off and started their own board(s)quietly and without fanfare.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/27/05 at 3:10pm

Ah, but Plumsie, posters themselves have proven that they are unwilling to operate within guidelines, whatever they might be.

Many of the most vocal about their desire to post shirtless icons and pictures are the same ones who would abuse the parameters. They have proven that already, and they have demonstrated their desire to press limits.

One of the stated guidelines is BWW's right to delete anything it believes to be inappropriate, in its sole discretion. Explanations are not required.

BWW does not shy from taking appropriate measures when/if a poster refuses to adhere to guidelines.

Posting on any message board is a privilege, not a right.