Should we make LB an 18+ website?

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Ginge

but you expect them to be deterred by being asked for their age?

plus, you sound like a bit of a pussy in all of this, trying to protect children from adult content online is a losing battle, all these changes will do is leave only the loudmouth arrogant adolescents to slip through to the site. Protecting children from adult content isn't your job, or the site members' job, should fall to parents or the heads of the site. Maybe rather than taking all these eggshell preventative measures, wait for a solitary complaint from a young user or parent to the administration.

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Ginge

but you expect them to be deterred by being asked for their age?

plus, you sound like a bit of a pussy in all of this, trying to protect children from adult content online is a losing battle, all these changes will do is leave only the loudmouth arrogant adolescents to slip through to the site. Protecting children from adult content isn't your job, or the site members' job, should fall to parents or the heads of the site. Maybe rather than taking all these eggshell preventative measures, wait for a solitary complaint from a young user or parent to the administration.

Originally Posted by Ginge

plus, you sound like a bit of a pussy in all of this, trying to protect children from adult content online is a losing battle, all these changes will do is leave only the loudmouth arrogant adolescents to slip through to the site. Protecting children from adult content isn't your job, or the site members' job, should fall to parents or the heads of the site. Maybe rather than taking all these eggshell preventative measures, wait for a solitary complaint from a young user or parent to the administration.

Feel free to refer to the posts where I've expressed that it's not solely about the child userbase.

Originally Posted by Ginge

plus, you sound like a bit of a pussy in all of this, trying to protect children from adult content online is a losing battle, all these changes will do is leave only the loudmouth arrogant adolescents to slip through to the site. Protecting children from adult content isn't your job, or the site members' job, should fall to parents or the heads of the site. Maybe rather than taking all these eggshell preventative measures, wait for a solitary complaint from a young user or parent to the administration.

Feel free to refer to the posts where I've expressed that it's not solely about the child userbase.

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Rant

Feel free to refer to the posts where I've expressed that it's not solely about the child userbase.

read the lot of this bollocks mate, but I don't feel a need to moderate my behaviour, and don't feel like underage users are infringing on my enjoyment of the site. Can't empathise with the plight from either side, think it's an oversensitive waste of time in all honesty.

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

@Rant all I can say is, if you were after a reasoned contrary argument, you've got it. If all you wanted was a slew of agreement, tough shit. Don't waste time telling people it's a discussion if all you want is to drag people in to a lecture. I think I've reasonably laid out why I disagree, as much as an autistic mind might not be able to grasp how I can disagree with what you view to be black and white, incontrovertible and crucial arguments in favour of the children. I maintain the amount of effort you're proposing isn't worth the minute effect (the minuteness being something you yourself have admitted to) that the steps will effect.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

bak 2 bein da long schlong mamafuckin prince innit

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Rant

Feel free to refer to the posts where I've expressed that it's not solely about the child userbase.

read the lot of this bollocks mate, but I don't feel a need to moderate my behaviour, and don't feel like underage users are infringing on my enjoyment of the site. Can't empathise with the plight from either side, think it's an oversensitive waste of time in all honesty.

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

@Rant all I can say is, if you were after a reasoned contrary argument, you've got it. If all you wanted was a slew of agreement, tough shit. Don't waste time telling people it's a discussion if all you want is to drag people in to a lecture. I think I've reasonably laid out why I disagree, as much as an autistic mind might not be able to grasp how I can disagree with what you view to be black and white, incontrovertible and crucial arguments in favour of the children. I maintain the amount of effort you're proposing isn't worth the minute effect (the minuteness being something you yourself have admitted to) that the steps will effect.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

bak 2 bein da long schlong mamafuckin prince innit

Originally Posted by Ginge

read the lot of this bollocks mate, but I don't feel a need to moderate my behaviour, and don't feel like underage users are infringing on my enjoyment of the site. Can't empathise with the plight from either side, think it's an oversensitive waste of time in all honesty.

How about from the legal standpoint, in that case? "Sensitivities" aside, there's an underlying potential legal issue with the current standard. With no age restriction, or mention to age outside of the small section in the privacy policy, you tread risky waters legally as the site owner in regard to COPPA, and the new reformations to the GDPR in Europe. Something which has the capacity to shut down the site, something I don't want to see happen. Regardless of whether there's a STRONG risk of this, to me is unimportant, as that potentiality exists. I don't want to see the site shutdown, because of something stupid like a member's age. An age restriction, and subsequent age verification mechanism helps to alleviate this on the basis of legality. As it said in the privacy policy, they do not collect data from children. But, without an age verification system, how is administration to determine who is a child, in order to refrain from data collection from those individuals?

Originally Posted by Ginge

read the lot of this bollocks mate, but I don't feel a need to moderate my behaviour, and don't feel like underage users are infringing on my enjoyment of the site. Can't empathise with the plight from either side, think it's an oversensitive waste of time in all honesty.

How about from the legal standpoint, in that case? "Sensitivities" aside, there's an underlying potential legal issue with the current standard. With no age restriction, or mention to age outside of the small section in the privacy policy, you tread risky waters legally as the site owner in regard to COPPA, and the new reformations to the GDPR in Europe. Something which has the capacity to shut down the site, something I don't want to see happen. Regardless of whether there's a STRONG risk of this, to me is unimportant, as that potentiality exists. I don't want to see the site shutdown, because of something stupid like a member's age. An age restriction, and subsequent age verification mechanism helps to alleviate this on the basis of legality. As it said in the privacy policy, they do not collect data from children. But, without an age verification system, how is administration to determine who is a child, in order to refrain from data collection from those individuals?

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Rant

How about from the legal standpoint, in that case? "Sensitivities" aside, there's an underlying potential legal issue with the current standard. With no age restriction, or mention to age outside of the small section in the privacy policy, you tread risky waters legally as the site owner in regard to COPPA, and the new reformations to the GDPR in Europe. An age restriction, and subsequent age verification mechanism helps to alleviate this on the basis of legality. As it said in the privacy policy, they do not collect data from children. But, without an age verification system, how is administration to determine who is a child, in order to refrain from data collection from those individuals?

If you're as incontrovertibly correct as you put it across, I suggest you take the issue direct to the moderators and administration. For Rant, if the stakes are as dire as this, and we're in the line of fire of the GDPR, COPPA and URACUNT then the fate of the site falls squarely on your shoulders, for having been the solitary intellect to notice such a gaping flaw in the site's fundamental structure. Go now, and act quickly, the site needs you

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

u twat

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Rant

How about from the legal standpoint, in that case? "Sensitivities" aside, there's an underlying potential legal issue with the current standard. With no age restriction, or mention to age outside of the small section in the privacy policy, you tread risky waters legally as the site owner in regard to COPPA, and the new reformations to the GDPR in Europe. An age restriction, and subsequent age verification mechanism helps to alleviate this on the basis of legality. As it said in the privacy policy, they do not collect data from children. But, without an age verification system, how is administration to determine who is a child, in order to refrain from data collection from those individuals?

If you're as incontrovertibly correct as you put it across, I suggest you take the issue direct to the moderators and administration. For Rant, if the stakes are as dire as this, and we're in the line of fire of the GDPR, COPPA and URACUNT then the fate of the site falls squarely on your shoulders, for having been the solitary intellect to notice such a gaping flaw in the site's fundamental structure. Go now, and act quickly, the site needs you

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

u twat

Originally Posted by Ginge

If you're as incontrovertibly correct as you put it across, I suggest you take the issue direct to the moderators and administration. For Rant, if the stakes are as dire as this, and we're in the line of fire of the GDPR, COPPA and URACUNT then the fate of the site falls squarely on your shoulders, for having been the solitary intellect to notice such a gaping flaw in the site's fundamental structure. Go now, and act quickly, the site needs you

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

u twat

Lol. I'll take an order of "backtracking in the face of factual basis" with a side of "heavy ad hominem."

Originally Posted by Ginge

If you're as incontrovertibly correct as you put it across, I suggest you take the issue direct to the moderators and administration. For Rant, if the stakes are as dire as this, and we're in the line of fire of the GDPR, COPPA and URACUNT then the fate of the site falls squarely on your shoulders, for having been the solitary intellect to notice such a gaping flaw in the site's fundamental structure. Go now, and act quickly, the site needs you

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

u twat

Lol. I'll take an order of "backtracking in the face of factual basis" with a side of "heavy ad hominem."

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Rant

Lol. I'll take an order of "backtracking in the face of factual basis" with a side of "heavy ad hominem."

genuine point, if u so sure u right, dere was no point discussin it, u were just here 4 dickstrokin agreement and adulation, with a side of pointin out what a pathetic needy butch u r ahaha

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

not a lot of point takin u serious wen u clearly more insecure than intellegent

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

if u had a basic grasp of my last 2 posts, u'd c more echoing of the same point than backtrackin, both only tried 2 argue dat ur pussio thread is pointless, and u aint botherin 2 do a good job addressin any points ahaha

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------

anyway, lost any energy 4 dis autistic shit now, as sed, if u sugh a genius take it 2 da top u daft twat ahahaha

---------- Post added at 09:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Rant

Lol. I'll take an order of "backtracking in the face of factual basis" with a side of "heavy ad hominem."

Just take a final moment to examine the pseudo-intellectual irony of using the phrase 'ad hominem' as part of an act of ad hominem. Daft Cunt.

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Rant

Lol. I'll take an order of "backtracking in the face of factual basis" with a side of "heavy ad hominem."

genuine point, if u so sure u right, dere was no point discussin it, u were just here 4 dickstrokin agreement and adulation, with a side of pointin out what a pathetic needy butch u r ahaha

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

not a lot of point takin u serious wen u clearly more insecure than intellegent

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

if u had a basic grasp of my last 2 posts, u'd c more echoing of the same point than backtrackin, both only tried 2 argue dat ur pussio thread is pointless, and u aint botherin 2 do a good job addressin any points ahaha

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------

anyway, lost any energy 4 dis autistic shit now, as sed, if u sugh a genius take it 2 da top u daft twat ahahaha

---------- Post added at 09:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Rant

Lol. I'll take an order of "backtracking in the face of factual basis" with a side of "heavy ad hominem."

Just take a final moment to examine the pseudo-intellectual irony of using the phrase 'ad hominem' as part of an act of ad hominem. Daft Cunt.

[Edgeworth]

Originally Posted by Ginge

If you're as incontrovertibly correct as you put it across, I suggest you take the issue direct to the moderators and administration. For Rant, if the stakes are as dire as this, and we're in the line of fire of the GDPR, COPPA and URACUNT then the fate of the site falls squarely on your shoulders, for having been the solitary intellect to notice such a gaping flaw in the site's fundamental structure. Go now, and act quickly, the site needs you

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

u twat

Damn, made Ginge break character.

[Edgeworth]

Originally Posted by Ginge

If you're as incontrovertibly correct as you put it across, I suggest you take the issue direct to the moderators and administration. For Rant, if the stakes are as dire as this, and we're in the line of fire of the GDPR, COPPA and URACUNT then the fate of the site falls squarely on your shoulders, for having been the solitary intellect to notice such a gaping flaw in the site's fundamental structure. Go now, and act quickly, the site needs you

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

u twat

Damn, made Ginge break character.

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Edgeworth

Damn, made Ginge break character.

stil me, g
was raised in a wank verbose household n use da site 2 let loose ahaha
aint no secret i can spel n shit if i want ahaha

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------

anyway, no response from da autist im hoppin off ahaha

[Ginge]

Originally Posted by Edgeworth

Damn, made Ginge break character.

stil me, g
was raised in a wank verbose household n use da site 2 let loose ahaha
aint no secret i can spel n shit if i want ahaha

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------

anyway, no response from da autist im hoppin off ahaha

Originally Posted by Edgeworth

Damn, made Ginge break character.

for real, to hell with the topic

Originally Posted by Edgeworth

Damn, made Ginge break character.

for real, to hell with the topic