User Controls
LANNY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
2017-07-14 at 2:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Lanny never fully thinks things through. It's always impulsive, obsessive, obstinate and short-sighted.
Well, what do you expect? Jeff was never there for him growing up. You tried hard, spectral, but there is only so much guidance you can give through a computer screen. I don't blame you for this. -
2017-07-14 at 2:22 PM UTCI think I should just take over the site as Admin. Lanny just obviously has no idea what he is doing, as far as community and content building. He basically has good intentions, but he's overwhelmed by partiality, ego, time constraints, and a seriously flawed view of the long-term logic of the situation. He can't handle the sock puppets and spam properly either. I have a ton of experience in these areas, and I'm not coloured, contaminated or handicapped by silly liberalism or arbitrary emotions.
-
2017-07-14 at 2:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL I think I should just take over the site as Admin. Lanny just obviously has no idea what he is doing, as far as community and content building. He basically has good intentions, but he's overwhelmed by partiality, ego, time constraints, and a seriously flawed view of the long-term logic of the situation. He can't handle the sock puppets and spam properly either. I have a ton of experience in these areas, and I'm not coloured, contaminated or handicapped by silly liberalism or arbitrary emotions.
yea but you'd prob ban me and everyone else so that's a no go -
2017-07-14 at 2:25 PM UTC
-
2017-07-14 at 2:26 PM UTC
-
2017-07-14 at 2:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic you think everyone deserves to be banned
you also said that i deserved to be banned like 12 hours ago
Well, it's not like anybody even needs to be banned. Every member can be talked to and a settlement/compromise reached. Banning people is very rarely ever an answer. Right now, with the absence of any real direction, people don't even know what they can and can't do. If you posted CP, and I told you straight up it was CP and not permitted, you would probably agreeably cooperate and not post it, so you wouldn't even have to be banned. Lanny is actually the one who thinks bans and post moves, picking up after everyone, and basically doing nothing, are the answer to everything, not me. -
2017-07-14 at 2:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Well, it's not like anybody even needs to be banned. Every member can be talked to and a settlement/compromise reached. Banning people is very rarely ever an answer. Right now, with the absence of any real direction, people don't even know what they can and can't do. If you posted CP, and I told you straight up it was CP and not permitted, you would probably agreeably cooperate and not post it, so you wouldn't even have to be banned. Lanny is actually the one who thinks bans and post moves, picking up after everyone, and basically doing nothing, are the answer to everything, not me.
didn't you ban scores of users in the old days? or am i mixing you up with meta again? -
2017-07-14 at 2:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic didn't you ban scores of users in the old days? or am i mixing you up with meta again?
I banned lots of real troublemakers, yes. Not saying they aren't around. Some people just won't cooperate, even if you are reasonable with them and explain everything fairly. They just want a challenge, and they won't stop until you defeat them. -
2017-07-14 at 5:04 PM UTCNobody here would make a very good admin because too many people here are caught up in the popularity contest. Jeff Hunter was a great admin BECAUSE he was never around. He kept the site online (mostly) which is all we needed from an admin.
-
2017-07-14 at 5:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Helladamnleet Nobody here would make a very good admin because too many people here are caught up in the popularity contest. Jeff Hunter was a great admin BECAUSE he was never around. He kept the site online (mostly) which is all we needed from an admin.
is there a popularity contest going on? i must be autistic because a lot of the time i completely fail to see some of the social aspects you niggas talk about -
2017-07-14 at 5:11 PM UTC*shitpost*
-
2017-07-14 at 5:22 PM UTC
-
2017-07-14 at 5:25 PM UTC
-
2017-07-14 at 6:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Helladamnleet Does that discredit my statement of "literally Google" somehow?
It's not really caselaw to the contrary, what I asked for. Generally it's caselaw supporting the notion the this kind of content does not constitute child pornography
Originally posted by greenplastic Yet people were still getting arrested for it and doing time for it as late as at least 2012, according to the same article. In 2012 and in 2008 they both entered guilty plea bargains and did jail time for lesser charges.
Why couldn't they do to you what they did to them? That is, charge you with the animated cp charges, along with some lesser charges, take proof of the animated cp from the site and show it to a jury which will definitely not be sympathetic towards you? Do you really want to take that chance just to let some cokehead troll a couple people on your site?
In every case charges were brought for actual child pornography, the animated pornography was an additional charge consistently dropped. In each case the defendant was an individual in possession of said content, not a host. Additionally hosts which actually do house this sort of content have established a precedent of being able to operate unmolested (ba dum tss). -
2017-07-14 at 6:45 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-07-14 at 7:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny It's not really caselaw to the contrary, what I asked for. Generally it's caselaw supporting the notion the this kind of content does not constitute child pornography
In every case charges were brought for actual child pornography, the animated pornography was an additional charge consistently dropped. In each case the defendant was an individual in possession of said content, not a host. Additionally hosts which actually do house this sort of content have established a precedent of being able to operate unmolested (ba dum tss).
Wrong. This guy was originally charged for real cp for his comic, which was dropped, but he still got charged for the comics.In October 2012, after being reported August 2011 by his wife, a 36-year-old man named Christian Bee in Monett, Missouri entered a plea bargain to "possession of cartoons depicting child pornography", with the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of Missouri recommending a 3-year prison sentence without parole. The office in conjunction with the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force argued that the "Incest Comics" on Bee's computer "clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Christian Bee was originally indicted for possession of actual child pornography, but that charge was dropped as part of a plea deal, and was instead charged with possession of the "Incest Comics."
-
2017-07-14 at 7:30 PM UTC
-
2017-07-14 at 7:55 PM UTC
-
2017-07-14 at 7:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic Wrong. This guy was originally charged for real cp for his comic, which was dropped, but he still got charged for the comics.
Ehh, I guess that's fair. He pled to an obscenity charge, so again, not child pornography. I mean obscenity laws are some retarded shit that literally prohibit "sexual deviancy" and institutionalize discrimination but my ethical objection to a law doesn't make for much of a defense. Also I think the chance of actual enforcement in this case is really quite low, but to be on the safe side let's go with it. -
2017-07-14 at 9:10 PM UTCjust be davy jones and take this dutchman down underwater.
into tor.
