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

[Myriads]

Thank you to the people who took the time to PM me with the info on the sig.

First up the image is in a signature. Thus the content rules differ from material posted as content.

The image reported contains no fetish content, and is not candid shot of a minor. It's a prepaired shot, taken for the purposes of making a social comment, then ported into a signature format.

I see no reason to remove it.

If the image contained any fetish content we'd pull it. If the image was a shot of a minor relative, or a candid pulled from the web we'd pull it.

This is not the first signature image that has contained a minor image that has been allowed to stay. We've had some people use cast images from TV shows, and various people have had cartoon babies, and other web flotsam of similar nature there. It's about intent, and why the user is placing it there.

Myriads

 

[jaba]

Well, I don't think it was at all innapropriate to broach the subject, if Babbles had any concerns about the issue, although someone should probably have raised the issue with Myriads sooner, to get clarification and to prevent some of the unecessary, immature, petty sniping and innuendo that occurred.....

But in my own opinion, (could be wrong, but respectful disagreements are always healthy) , it seems like we are all talking about the "safest, most "allowable" and "permitted" way to sprint across freeway traffic....we could all come up with a thousand creative and even strategic ways to do it, but there always remains the risk of someone getting their ass nailed by a semi truck, despite the best of care and intentions.....

My own opinion is, why even run the risk of inviting unwarranted scrutiny by some concerned or vindictive asshat outside our fetish community, particularly in light of the fact that we know that there are elements in society that would be pleased as punch of the TMF disappeared? Why even open ourselves up to the possibility of having to explain to some idiot with an anti fetish agenda the reason "non fetish depicting child pictures are "permitted" on our "adult forum with sexual content"? Why would we even want to potentially invite such scrutiny, even though we may be completely in the right? Does anybody here have the time, or even care to, fight such a potentially spotlight inducing battle?

You ever hear of being "dead right"?

You are driving your car, approaching a signal light that is green permitted for you to proceed......

You see clearly that a car to your left is hauling ass to your intersection, no braking or slowing at all in the approach......

But because you are "legally" permitted to proceed through your green light, you do, knowing full well there is a chance you will get centerpunched.....

Ok....so you were "in the right", but in the process of being "right", you risked the chance of getting "eliminated"....

So....I guess you have to decide if your position, and the potential defense of your "right", is worth the risk?......

 

[chicago]

So....I guess you have to decide if your position, and the potential defense of your "right", is worth the risk?......

It's a Sally Mann photograph. A piece of art that I liked and found fitting. I've gotten only compliments on it and no member or mod has brought to my attention their problem with it. Instead, I happen upon this thread that's been going on for days.

If the mods decide that my signature is inappropriate, I will of course take it down, but until then I'll keep it, as I happen to like it.

But I apologize to the two people on this entire forum that seem to disagree.

I'd also like to direct some people to Ann's thread found here

where she makes some good points, such as:

5. One benefit the internet does have over real life is the fact that we can save pretty much anything and everything. If someone does or says something that you find offensive, save it and address it with that person. If it's something that might effect others and satisfaction isn't found, then (and ideally only then) it can be taken to a mod or some other person with the authority to do something about it. In doing so, an original copy of the offensive material can be passed along so that they may see what you are refering to. Without this, it is unreasonable to expect that action be taken. After all, if you don't take it seriously enough to save it, there could be some question as to both the seriousness or even the reality of the offense.

 

[jaba]

But I apologize to the two people on this entire forum that seem to disagree.

No need to apologize, but whether its 2 people, or 10 people, or even "half a person" that disagrees, most mature adults can handle respectfully articulated dissenting opinions....on an "adult" forum with sexual content......its called debate......we all may agree that we like tickling, but there's no requirement to agree on everything else......

 

[alwayssilver]

What I don't understand is this. How is it that people under the age of 18 aren't allowed to join this site because of the sexual content, but people 18 and over can post pictures of minors regardless if it's tickling or not. This is a fetish site, there is no changing or denying that. Minors don't belong here regardless of the circumstances or situation they are presented in. Tickling or not they don't belong here.

 

[Myriads]

More clarification needed it seems.....

No issues with Babbles bringing the topic up. It was a valid question. I do wish that it had been reported to us first though.

Myriads

 

[Cave In]

It might just be me but is this issue not been blown way out of proportion...All it needed was a simple PM to a moderator to point out the sig

The issue has been discussed exstensively and the image in question was posted by a respected member of the forum who has stated her purposes for its use, which is blatantly non-sexual. Thats not to say i dont support the zero tolerance rule on minor content....but I dont see this image falling into that category.

Just my two pence.

 

[drew70]

I never supported the zero tolerance thing to begin with and still don't. I understand the reasons it was implemented but I maintain that unless the picture shows bondage, nudity or sexual contact, it isn't porn. Innocent spontaneous tickling is not sexual contact, and doesn't even come close to qualifying.

I think the fact some people want to ban any images of minors whatsoever shows just how far this paranoia will take us if we let it. Will it be considered pornagraphic for somebody to mention in General Discussion that they took their kid to the doctor's office? Are we to pretend that kids don't exist or that people don't become ticklish until that magic age of 18?

 

[jaba]

It might just be me but is this issue not been blown way out of proportion...All it needed was a simple PM to a moderator to point out the sig

The issue has been discussed exstensively and the image in question was posted by a respected member of the forum who has stated her purposes for its use, which is blatantly non-sexual. Thats not to say i dont support the zero tolerance rule on minor content....but I dont see this image falling into that category.

Just my two pence.

Your points are noted, Cave In......

The thing that was disturbing about this thread, at least to me, was the vitriol and hostility directed at the creator of this thread for "daring" to broach an issue that concerned her about a pictire that is currently on our forum.....its like, "how dare she question the policies of our forum? Who does she think she is?

And to make clear, this was NOT the position of the moderators....the moderators saw no problem explaining the policy of our forum to us) but rather this was the position of some members who seem to feel that a clarification of a policy (particularily one as potentially troublesome as posting pictures of minors on an adult forum with sexual content)
was somehow an offense in itself?......

Look, I come to this place for entertainment and to be informed and perhaps if lucky, get in a little tickle action with like minded ladies....

And while I have absolutely every confidence in the articulate skills of Myriads should the question of why pictures of minors are ANYWHERE on our adult forum with sexual content (actually, Myriads is about the ONLY one here I would feel comfortable with as our advocate explaining the policy to an "outsider"....particularly an "outsider" with an "anti sexual fetish" agenda), my question is why even be burdened with that bullshit hassle, if it can be avoided?....I see no problem presenting that topic for discussion, and I think it is unfair to berate the member who presents the topic for discussion if she has concerns....I would certainly want to know more about that policy clarification, rather than the "how ticklish are your feet?" question for the millionth time........

 

[jaba]

I never supported the zero tolerance thing to begin with and still don't. I understand the reasons it was implemented but I maintain that unless the picture shows bondage, nudity or sexual contact, it isn't porn. Innocent spontaneous tickling is not sexual contact, and doesn't even come close to qualifying.

I think the fact some people want to ban any images of minors whatsoever shows just how far this paranoia will take us if we let it. Will it be considered pornagraphic for somebody to mention in General Discussion that they took their kid to the doctor's office? Are we to pretend that kids don't exist or that people don't become ticklish until that magic age of 18?

I respect your opinion, Drew, although i dont always agree with you.... 🙂

but you are intelligent enough to know that there are elements in our society that would be extremely happy, and would count it as a MAJOR victory, if this forum and it's adult sexual fetish content were not around.....

and with all due respect, it is not YOU who would be placed in the uncomfortable, "hot seat" of explaining our policy of allowing pictures of minors on our adult forum with sexual content ...that bullshit hassle burden would be placed on our moderators.....and i'm just saying why be put in a position where they may have to explain that shit to someone who may clearly not care to hear any explanation, because their mind is already made up that we are wrong and shouldnt be around here in the first place?

why invite the damn wolf in the house by potentially leaving a door open? Frankly, I would prefer that the TMF be in existence, rather than "relishing in the rightousness of my cause", while the TMF risks unwarranted, unnessary scrutiny from those who think it is their "righteous cause" to see us go away......I am sure that those who are committed to the elimination of sites like the TMF are just as committed to their convictions as you are....

 

[isabeau]

i personally see nothing wrong with the signature in question..however i do not like how people are attacking Babbles for having the nerve to state her opinion and concerns over this issue..i admire her courage for going against the norm here...

 

[TMF Jeff]

I think the way babbles chose to present this, making it a public crusade without any details, and without giving the moderators a chance to deal with it before she decided that it was a crisis, invited a certain amount of negativity.

 

[jaba]

I think the way babbles chose to present this, making it a public crusade without any details, and without giving the moderators a chance to deal with it before she decided that it was a crisis, invited a certain amount of negativity.

that may be true Jeff, but that still doesn't give members here the right to "jump her ass" with demeaning comments for expressing her opinion here....respectful dessent, yes, but the disrespectful comments, uncalled for, in my opinion.....

and some folks here DO regard the subject of child pictures ANYWHERE on a sexual fetish adult forum to be troublesome.....and potentially trouble causing....

Babbles perhaps could have gone a different tact and contacted the moderators with her concerns, but she did not deserve the disrespectful attacks by some of the members here for doing what she did.....

 

[alwayssilver]

More clarification needed it seems.....

No issues with Babbles bringing the topic up. It was a valid question. I do wish that it had been reported to us first though.

Myriads

No Myriads no clarification is needed. I understand perfectly.

This is a fetish site.
No miniors belong on it in any way, shape or form.
You allow miniors to be posted on this site only if it's not tickling. Which is wrong, and you could still get in trouble for.

Now I'm sure a lot of people coming on here will understand why this site is chocked full of naked ladies and men being tickled, and words used like "Cum" and I'm sure someone will click on a picture of a little girl and understand why someone would post it on a fetish site. Well I'm just waiting for the day when someone sees all these things, clicks on the picture of the little girl and not understand.

You need to stop the problem before it starts. No minors means no minors. Uphold the rule.

 

[drew70]

why invite the damn wolf in the house by potentially leaving a door open? ....

We've done that already, the moment we donned the identity of an "adult fetish" site. If the TMF had instead defined itself as a website devoted to all aspects of tickling, we'd not have to be concerned with stories, pictures, or true accounts of tickling during childhood. But that's all water under the bridge. The damage that's been done cannot be undone.

 

[kis123]

I personally don't find the image of a child holding a cigarette appropriate on anyone's forum, but it's not my call to judge. I have learned over the years that offense is subjective and so is art. Some people think it's okay to have a woman pulling up her top and showing off her naked breasts to be just fine, but I find it degrading and disgusting. Once again, offense being subjective.

Unliess it's something totally vile (which I have yet to see around here), I simply ignore it; most of it eventually goes away anyway.

Babbles, all I can say is you took a big risk, and you see the payoff. You already stated that maybe you could've handled things a little differently. I see a lesson learned and maybe we should all just move on from here. Can't we all just get along? 😀

 

[Myriads]

And once more into the fray for yet more clarification ...

Our minor rules are in effect as they stand to prevent issues that could lead to inturuption of the forum being able to provide it's services. To that end they have been crafted to maximise that protection, while also trying to allow as much freedom of topic and opinion as possible.

Context is the key when doing this. Media Posts on the forum are considered content. When it comes to media content we have a zero tolerence rule when it comes to minors. Why? Because of context. The TMF is considered an adult forum, with a specific concentration on the fetish of tickling. That means, in basic terms, that people who sexually get off on tickling come here.

So when Drew says: I maintain that unless the picture shows bondage, nudity or sexual contact, it isn't porn. Innocent spontaneous tickling is not sexual contact, and doesn't even come close to qualifying. he's both correct and incorrect. Yes the image might be 'innocent' by all standards taken alone. BUT, once placed onto the TMF as content, it becomes the focus of a majority audience that is present with the intent of sexual satisfaction. That context changes the image from one of innocence to one of problems. That is why such material gets removed.

Content + Context > Content Alone

The law looks at context as often as content these days when issues regarding a piece of media are raised. Our policy reflects that reality.

Alwayssilver approches from the other side: You allow miniors to be posted on this site only if it's not tickling. Which is wrong, and you could still get in trouble for.

He feels that the allowed use of minors is tied directly to tickling. No that is not true. It's tied to content and expectations. Images of minors are not allowed in the non-tickling image forum. We are endlessly editing out the jail-bait of the year females that are posted there. Why? Context. Those images are posted with the intent of sexualization of the content for the end-user. "Look at her feet!" "Look at her armpits!" etc. That's the context. It's adding a sexual context to images of minors, so it's not allowed.

Context is what is first and foremost in these moderation chocies.

Signature images are not considered content by me. They are personal statements, and representations of individuals via images and words. In them we see ranges of images that include religious symbols, bands, music playlists, film clips that includ vulgar words, cartoons and so on. It's quite the variety of things that manages to offend everyone differently.

I could say no minors in signatures. But to this point in time I never had a reason to. The handful of minor images that have appeared in sigs have always been clearly political statements. Or just silly like the new years baby, or that horrid dancing baby from Alley McBeal. I also remember a toddler getting pounced on by a cat in an annoyingly slow to load looped clip. Humor. Their contexts were non sexual and clear. Thus they stood.

If we encountered signature elements that were clearly designed to BE sexual in nature and minors were included they would be removed.

Folks, we try to treat you as we'd want to be treated. That means we try to allow as much as possible. And we stand by such choices until they are abused in such ways as that makes it impossible.

An example: For a long time we allowed the discussion of 'early memories' regarding tickling. We felt that how we came to be who we are in regards to our fetish was important and of merit. Very worth the discussion. There was an early memory thread that ran into the hundreds of pages.

And then one day it vanished, and lots of other such posts did also. And the topic became one of the things that reuslts in an instant pull. Why?

Because users decided to change the context of the topic.

What once was a thread full of people looking at what started thier interest, and discussling and compairing those experiences, turned into a thread of thinly vieled fiction designed to do nothing more then provide content for getting off. By the threads end, the stroke posts were outnumbering the others three to one.

The thread was no longer about sharing and learning from those early experiences it became about getting off to things involving minors.

So it died. And so as it could not happen again, all other 'early experience' topics had to go also.

Context.

It's why you can find the jokes that include minors in humor. It's why you can find discussion posts involving problems with kids by frustrated parents in GenDis. It's why you see the occasional minor in a signature image.

I can turn the TMF into a virtual police state if I wanted.

But what fun would that be? Why would anyone want to come to such a place? I don't think I would. So I'll be damned if I'll become one bit harsher then I need to be to keep the place secure.

It amuses me. Both the posters I quoted have problems with the way the forum is run. And both are 100% on opposite ends of what IS being done wrong. It's a wonderful example of the line I get to walk here every day when I run this place.

Life is compromise. You get some, you loose some. But in the end, hopefully, every one has enough.

Be well,
Myriads

 

[alwayssilver]

And once more into the fray for yet more clarification ...

Our minor rules are in effect as they stand to prevent issues that could lead to inturuption of the forum being able to provide it's services. To that end they have been crafted to maximise that protection, while also trying to allow as much freedom of topic and opinion as possible.

Context is the key when doing this. Media Posts on the forum are considered content. When it comes to media content we have a zero tolerence rule when it comes to minors. Why? Because of context. The TMF is considered an adult forum, with a specific concentration on the fetish of tickling. That means, in basic terms, that people who sexually get off on tickling come here.

So when Drew says: I maintain that unless the picture shows bondage, nudity or sexual contact, it isn't porn. Innocent spontaneous tickling is not sexual contact, and doesn't even come close to qualifying. he's both correct and incorrect. Yes the image might be 'innocent' by all standards taken alone. BUT, once placed onto the TMF as content, it becomes the focus of a majority audience that is present with the intent of sexual satisfaction. That context changes the image from one of innocence to one of problems. That is why such material gets removed.

Content + Context > Content Alone

The law looks at context as often as content these days when issues regarding a piece of media are raised. Our policy reflects that reality.

Alwayssilver approches from the other side: You allow miniors to be posted on this site only if it's not tickling. Which is wrong, and you could still get in trouble for.

He feels that the allowed use of minors is tied directly to tickling. No that is not true. It's tied to content and expectations. Images of minors are not allowed in the non-tickling image forum. We are endlessly editing out the jail-bait of the year females that are posted there. Why? Context. Those images are posted with the intent of sexualization of the content for the end-user. "Look at her feet!" "Look at her armpits!" etc. That's the context. It's adding a sexual context to images of minors, so it's not allowed.

Context is what is first and foremost in these moderation chocies.

Signature images are not considered content by me. They are personal statements, and representations of individuals via images and words. In them we see ranges of images that include religious symbols, bands, music playlists, film clips that includ vulgar words, cartoons and so on. It's quite the variety of things that manages to offend everyone differently.

I could say no minors in signatures. But to this point in time I never had a reason to. The handful of minor images that have appeared in sigs have always been clearly political statements. Or just silly like the new years baby, or that horrid dancing baby from Alley McBeal. I also remember a toddler getting pounced on by a cat in an annoyingly slow to load looped clip. Humor. Their contexts were non sexual and clear. Thus they stood.

If we encountered signature elements that were clearly designed to BE sexual in nature and minors were included they would be removed.

Folks, we try to treat you as we'd want to be treated. That means we try to allow as much as possible. And we stand by such choices until they are abused in such ways as that makes it impossible.

An example: For a long time we allowed the discussion of 'early memories' regarding tickling. We felt that how we came to be who we are in regards to our fetish was important and of merit. Very worth the discussion. There was an early memory thread that ran into the hundreds of pages.

And then one day it vanished, and lots of other such posts did also. And the topic became one of the things that reuslts in an instant pull. Why?

Because users decided to change the context of the topic.

What once was a thread full of people looking at what started thier interest, and discussling and compairing those experiences, turned into a thread of thinly vieled fiction designed to do nothing more then provide content for getting off. By the threads end, the stroke posts were outnumbering the others three to one.

The thread was no longer about sharing and learning from those early experiences it became about getting off to things involving minors.

So it died. And so as it could not happen again, all other 'early experience' topics had to go also.

Context.

It's why you can find the jokes that include minors in humor. It's why you can find discussion posts involving problems with kids by frustrated parents in GenDis. It's why you see the occasional minor in a signature image.

I can turn the TMF into a virtual police state if I wanted.

But what fun would that be? Why would anyone want to come to such a place? I don't think I would. So I'll be damned if I'll become one bit harsher then I need to be to keep the place secure.

It amuses me. Both the posters I quoted have problems with the way the forum is run. And both are 100% on opposite ends of what IS being done wrong. It's a wonderful example of the line I get to walk here every day when I run this place.

Life is compromise. You get some, you loose some. But in the end, hopefully, every one has enough.

Be well,
Myriads

You are completely and utterly wrong. I'll let you know how I feel, don't tell me or others how I feel because I'm more than up to the task. I do not feel that the allowed use of miniors is tied directly into tickling because I have seen those pictures, and there isn't any tickling involved in them. But still tickling is involved here using material that is directed towards adults, not minors. When you post the rule "No minors" you need to uphold that rule, not make exceptions to it. Members on here, not just 2 of them feel the same as us, and people outside the community feel the same way. No minors belong on the forum regardless if the picture is sexual in nature or not. And this place wouldn't be considered a police... whatever you called it just because you inforce your own rules. Yet that's exactly what you seem to be doing when you pick out two members who stand up for what they believe in. It's funny how you'll pick me and drew out and just try to humiliate us simply because were standing up for what we believe in. Or were questioning your wisdom on the subject. You are wrong. Miniors do not belong here at all!

 

[tickleterror]

You are completely and utterly wrong. I'll let you know how I feel, don't tell me or others how I feel because I'm more than up to the task. I do not feel that the allowed use of miniors is tied directly into tickling because I have seen those pictures, and there isn't any tickling involved in them. But still tickling is involved here using material that is directed towards adults, not minors. When you post the rule "No minors" you need to uphold that rule, not make exceptions to it. Members on here, not just 2 of them feel the same as us, and people outside the community feel the same way. No minors belong on the forum regardless if the picture is sexual in nature or not. And this place wouldn't be considered a police... whatever you called it just because you inforce your own rules. Yet that's exactly what you seem to be doing when you pick out two members who stand up for what they believe in. It's funny how you'll pick me and drew out and just try to humiliate us simply because were standing up for what we believe in. Or were questioning your wisdom on the subject. You are wrong. Miniors do not belong here at all!

You really need to grow up.

If you think the way this site is being run is wrong then stop coming here. He did not try to humiliate you he pointed out two sides of the argument and explained how he has to deal with it to keep everyone happy. I for one am extremely glad with the way that people like Myriads and other Mods help with this site, i'm pretty sure it would be a very different place without them.

 

[jaba]

Well explained, Myriads........and in the unfortunate event that any scrutiny arises over the TMF policy, I am comfortable with you being our "first line of defense" in explanation of our policy, though for the record, I still bristle at the depiction or image of children in ANY content or context on our forum.....but I respect the opinions of those here who disagree......
But one of my main concerns was the disrespectful manner and tone that was taken against Babbles for broaching a topic that concerned her, and quite frankly concerned me and others here, with regard to minors being depicted.....and again I state that it was not the moderators who were the "offended and offending" parties, it was just a few rude members......

I again thank you for the explanation of the policy, and I just hope that no negative effects from negative, disruptive elements outside our forum try to find cause to make trouble for us as a result of the current policy......it certainly seems defensible, but you may have to draw deep into your considerable well of articulation to defend it......I just would not want to, nor do I have the talent to do that job.....

 

[alwayssilver]

If you think the way this site is being run is wrong then stop coming here. He did not try to humiliate you he pointed out two sides of the argument and explained how he has to deal with it to keep everyone happy. I for one am extremely glad with the way that people like Myriads and other Mods help with this site, i'm pretty sure it would be a very different place without them.

I knew I would get one of those "If you don't like it leave" posts. But I'm not going to leave, and I'm going to stand up for what I believe in. If that's a problem than by all means ban me. But I did not break any rules when I posted. And I do feel like he was trying to humiliate us.

 

[tickleterror]

Just for curiosity's sake what part of Myriads post did you find humiliating.

 

[alwayssilver]

Singling people out is a form of humiliation.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Yet that's exactly what you seem to be doing when you pick out two members who stand up for what they believe in. It's funny how you'll pick me and drew out and just try to humiliate us simply because were standing up for what we believe in. Or were questioning your wisdom on the subject. You are wrong. Miniors do not belong here at all!

You really need to grow up.

Myriads did no such thing as far as this one can tell. He carefully and with the utmost respect addressed the concerns of you both, weighing both sides and explaining why he thinks like he does. I am sorry to see that you think Myriads should "grow up." I have never seen him exercise anything but the most careful and thought-out judgement in everything he does. Personally, I see such a comment as more rude and unsubstantiated than anything. He took the time to lay out his opinion while taking care to understand and consider yours; the least you could do is pay the respect due to any fellow human being and respond in kind. But, such is my opinion. Take it for what you will.

I myself do not approve 100% of the blanket no minors policy for some of the reasons Drew laid out but I support completely Myriads reasons for implementing it.

 

[tickleterror]

Singling people out is a form of humiliation.

Well it's nice to know where your coming from on this but, as i pointed out before, i don't believe he singled you or Drew out, and i'm pretty sure Drew doesn't feel singled out by that post, I wouldn't be.