Ok, is it me or, so much for NO images of children...

[Babbles]

Ya gotta be kidding me people. Pardon me for writing in a foul mood, but I can't believe it hasn't been said. Something's off here, not just my aura.

The Mods have generally been great here, and still are, but.... um, we all make mistakes..... and I'm sure the intent & application have been taken into consideration.

However.

I'm not here much, I'm not an extraordinary member, but *I've even noticed there's been a (siggie, no less!!) with a young girl --- with her FACE clearly depicted,

---which really should've been removed.

And this is in a siggie, so it appears in EVERY THREAD that person enters.
Not just the whole-wheat-bread threads, but the wildly "alternative," the whole gamut.

There was a stink about that too, in a thread not so long ago. Child pics, AT ALL, ANYWHERE. And certainly not in.... those threads.....

I thought this was Majorly Illegal, Unethical, Unthinkable ---- Right?????

IF THAT WERE MY SISTER ---- NUH UH.

It may be an "innocent" shot, kid fully clothed, which is, I assume, why it's been permitted
(still not excusable)
and I'm sure there are a few others that slipped by the radar,

and I may have myself posted an art picture --- in a congratulatory thread!! --- of an abstract of two kids, a blurry photo with no faces.

But I thought there was a STRICT rule about children's photos, and I witnessed one gentleman beheaded for providing a LINK to a site that included --- which he apologized for --- kids being tickled innocently.

Boy, did that thread get shot fast, as did the gentleman in question.

.....Am I truly non-smoking, or is there just a wee bit of a double standard here?

I wasn't thinking so generally, but HelloooOOOooooo---- This has been on for MONTHS.

Tell me I'm wrong, if a guy did that... (head on pike)
OY, he'd be falsely labelled every last sort of Pervert Scumbag.
<a href=http://www.glitter-graphics.com title='Myspace Graphics'><img src=http://dl5.glitter-graphics.net/pub/53/53265joppby0ncb.gif width=113 height=113 alt='myspace layouts, myspace codes, glitter graphics' border=0></a>

I'm as sure as anyone can be that's not the intent of any of the above folks who've included or unwittingly linked to child's pictures,

but we do need to be more careful, and allow the rules to apply across the board, no?

 

[Bugman]

I'm not here much, I'm not an extraordinary member, but *I've even noticed there's been a (siggie, no less!!) with a young girl --- with her FACE clearly depicted

I have never seen such a signature,have you reported it?

 

[venray]

I have not seen the sig either, but I believe the rule is for minors not being depicted in tickling scenes nor in stories involving fetish themes....

If I wanted to post a pic of my son, it would be allowed as long as it was just a pic of him and nothing more..

Several folks have posted pics of their family here.....so no, I do not believe it is a double standard.....

 

[Babbles]

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?t=97174&highlight=child+pornography
(that was the discussion I was thinking of, a thoughtful poll by Viper on any "underage content")

Thank you both, as that your replies do make me feel much better, as you don't seem to have seen anything amiss, though I must disagree -- (You've definitely seen the sig).

I'm not talking about family members, however, in my example(s) of what's been tolerated here,
but of a picture of a pretty underage girl in what would be considered an "adult" pose (or at least, a very "grown-up" pose).

I'm not out to embarrass anyone, and as I noted I'm sure the intent wasn't to lure pedophiles, so I won't specify, but I think we should be much more careful. The child's face is that of an 11? 13? yr old?

The issue had been raised, if I'm not mistaken,
whether *any pictures of children were inappropriate
especially if they could possibly be viewed as even vaguely "sexy," by anyone,

and especially if they appear in very adult threads,
as a sig pic would automatically. This one definitely qualifies.

 

[kered]

I only had one picture of myself that had my girl in it with me when I joined the TMF. I sent it to the members pics forum and it was reduced to show only me. At the time I was told no children since this is an adult site. I thought about it and I think that it was a reasonable request from the owners of this site.

 

[Babbles]

I only had one picture of myself that had my girl in it with me when I joined the TMF. I sent it to the members pics forum and it was reduced to show only me. At the time I was told no children since this is an adult site. I thought about it and I think that it was a reasonable request from the owners of this site.

I agree, and they're usually more careful.

 

[Tickle Fiend]

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?t=97174&highlight=child+pornography
(that was the discussion I was thinking of, a thoughtful poll by Viper on any "underage content")

Thank you both, as that your replies do make me feel much better, as you don't seem to have seen anything amiss, though I must disagree -- (You've definitely seen the sig).

I'm not talking about family members, however, in my example(s) of what's been tolerated here,
but of a picture of a pretty underage girl in what would be considered an "adult" pose (or at least, a very "grown-up" pose).

I'm not out to embarrass anyone, and as I noted I'm sure the intent wasn't to lure pedophiles, so I won't specify, but I think we should be much more careful. The child's face is that of an 11? 13? yr old?

The issue had been raised, if I'm not mistaken,
whether *any pictures of children were inappropriate
especially if they could possibly be viewed as even vaguely "sexy," by anyone,

and especially if they appear in very adult threads,
as a sig pic would automatically. This one definitely qualifies.

I really never thought nothing of it until you started this thread. I always assumed that the rule was strictly for tickling, but I see your point.

 

[Bugman]

I agree, and they're usually more careful.

I see what you mean Babbles,and yes i would remove it if i were a mod.

 

[Babbles]

Thanks gentlemen - yeah, I'm sure the mods' intents were all good, and they assumed the same of the postee/s, which is why it's been allowed, but that just repeatedly (struck me as odd).

 

[Bugman]

I'm not here much, I'm not an extraordinary member,

It matters not how much you are here,your opinion is as valid as anyone eles.

 

[OnnaOtaku]

I think I know which sig pic she is referring to.....

 

[Bugman]

I'm not so good at the advice..Can i intrest you in a sarcastic comment? ROFLMAO.May i borrow that?

 

[OnnaOtaku]

I'm not so good at the advice..Can i intrest you in a sarcastic comment? ROFLMAO.May i borrow that?

I will lease it to you for one week with credit to me, of course!

Anyways, back on topic.... child porn... pictures... sig...

 

[Bugman]

Several folks have posted pics of their family here.....so no, I do not believe it is a double standard.....

I see your point also Ray,but speaking for myself i think no pictures of minors period is the way to go here.There are other places where those can be posted and anyone who wants to see them can do so....

 

[TMF Jeff]

This is what the rule states: We don't allow posts that involve any form of images, clips, or story with a minor in them as a focus for tickling or other fetish behavior. Period. Any that we find will be removed. There will be zero tolerance on this issue. No exceptions.

That seems pretty clear to me...

 

[Babbles]

Precisely.

If a child's picture, and especially a pretty one in a "grown-up" pose,
DOES show up in such a thread, as it's been placed within a siggie,
I'd think that does qualify.

It goes whereever the siggie goes, where the person posts, including tickling threads (with or without explicit content, and probably both).

Maybe not as a focus for tickling directly, but as a picture in a fetish thread, and therefore a potential focus.

Nothing with children belongs anywhere near much less within those threads in this forum,

I would've thought you'd agree
which is why I was puzzled as to your tolerance of one pretty child's image surfacing (everywhere) as noted above.

Since I work with children I may very well be over-protective, but I don't think that's the case here. And I also appreciate the fact that many or most haven't thought twice about it, since the intent wasn't overtly sexual, I'm guessing (which is why I didn't specify, again).

I think the rules apply here, and that more care should be taken.

I don't think it's a good idea to bandy about a child's picture --- her face, and without her consent!!---
*all over a fetish forum.

(Hopefully the kid isn't aware we exist yet, she probably thought she'd only be listed on Myspace...)

 

[Myriads]

This sig has never been reported.

I can't act on things I don't know about. Unless I bump into it myself when wandering the forum I don't see everything.

If this sig is an issue why has it not been reported? That tells me no one has issues woth it.

Report the thing. So we can see it and act.

There is all this debate about an issue that no staff member has even had a chance to look at. At least give us a chance before bringing out the knives to shred us.

Myriads

 

[DannyMc]

If I might throw my 2 cents in here , I think I know which picture your speaking of . When I first saw it I wondered about it , but for the person who put it I could understand what was behind it . What the child depicts in my eyes is not a fetish and should not be seen as such , but more of a statement on one's choise or character , not a wise choise , but one all the same ............. This is just my opinion on it ..............

 

[Bugman]

There is all this debate about an issue that no staff member has even had a chance to look at. At least give us a chance before bringing out the knives to shred us.

I sure did not mean to shread anybody.I see this sig so seldom it had not occured to me to question it.Babbles had to bring it up.And i agree with her that there is no harm meant,by the sig holder or the mods.After thinking it over however i stand by my statement.I would just as soon see no pictures of minors here,no matter how innocent the intent.If i am wrong so be it.

 

[Azrael]

If a child's picture, and especially a pretty one in a "grown-up" pose,
DOES show up in such a thread, as it's been placed within a siggie,
I'd think that does qualify.

Then you'd think wrongly, as it's already been stated that it does not. Explicitly. By the board's owner.

Additionally, you are throwing a serious veil over things by calling a girl standing upright with a serious look on her face, fully dressed, arm crossed over her body, being in a "grown up pose." She's in a grown-up pose, yes, in terms of attitude and sophistication, but that is not the impression you intentionally made.

 

[Babbles]

Myriads --
The sig is all over the forums, and I can assure you it has definitely been seen by mods. No secret.

I apologize for, as I noted, writing in a foul mood after seeing it hasn't been removed after quite a long time, when I seriously doubt the same would be acceptable for a guy's siggie, and that regardless it really doesn't belong in a sig at all, as I commented, because that sig goes everywhere.

As I also commented, maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I don't really think so. I understand, as Danny noted, and as I did myself above, it's been taken in a certain context, which is why it's been tolerated.

I just think more care should be taken with children's pictures, and I partially wanted to spark debate so that, I hope, this doesn't happen again.

Bugman, I apologize as that comment was directed at me, not you.

Azrael, continue to misintepret as you see fit. Speaking of "knives."

JonBene' Ramsey would no doubt thank your ilk. And I made no mention of her earlier, you might note, but in light of your acidic comments the parallel is now fitting.

A little girl doesn't belong in certain grown up poses,
and as I clearly commented, neither that pose nor her face belong ANYWHERE in a fetish thread, most of all.

More emphasis was placed upon her face.

You disagree, I see. That's fine, but don't presume to know my intentions unless you have indisputable proof of omnipotence.
If anything, yours are questionable for the content of your response.

There is no misleading "veil" or "impression" here. I was and remain point blank.

I made no comments nor insinuations that the child was engaged in activity other than that, only that her face does not belong in fetish threads. Read carefully if you're going to comment.

I have the right to disagree with the board's owner. Especially where images of children are concerned.

If your opinions are carbon copies of his because he owns the board, there's little point in your posting except to continue to echo your own purposeful distortions.

I guess you'd never have approved any modifications to the Constitution since you didn't own it.
Sometimes rules need to be changed or modified, other times they need to be applied "across the board."
Sometimes both.

 

[Myriads]

Let me try this once again.

I have no clue what sig you are talking about. I rarely look at sig images, and many mods ignore them also, we tend to look at the parts of the posts with content.

If this sig is such an issue report it to me so I can evaluate it and take action if needful. Lets cut the coy 'it's out there' stuff and get to the point so I can solve this issue.

Moderators often do not see issues unless they are pointed out. We count on users to report issues. We have no magic violation sense that leads us to see things easily. No one has reported any signatures for over a year.

We have about a 1000 members who post and I'm not going to slog through them one at a time to attempt to find this, I do have a life. Also they seem to change their sigs every five seconds so it's impossible to keep track of whats in them. Perhaps it's time to reconsider allowing sigs here if they are goign to cause such problems.

I assume that someone knows whos sig this is report it to me.

Right now I assume it's the cartoon baby in Venrays sig?

Myriads

 

[venray]

Huh? What cartoon baby?

I have borg bunnies and 3 stooges smilies, but no cartoon baby.....

 

[Ace Riley]

Babbles sure does live up to her name.

I know the sig you're talking about, and honestly, you're so offbase as to be ridiculous.

Your opinion on "poses" and the like and it's interpretation aren't needed. It doesn't break the rules of the forum, so Jeff already kicked your soapbox from under your legs a few posts ago.

Go ahead and "judge me" for my opinion. We've already heard yours.

 

[chicago]

I hope the forum isn't shut down because of this signature.

I wonder who's it is...