Started by JustWill at 11,Aug,15 17:27 other posts of JustWill
 | Admin posted a link in his "What you like and what you do not like about this site" thread.
Check it out!  |
Similar topics: 1.The STAR CHAMBER 2.Sneaker Photo Update 3.Why does he keep visiting my page? 4.The perverse joy of getting a member deleted 5.Here's a thought regarding the infamous Star Chamber "message"...
The member was referred because he's got some weed resting on his balls. Really?
Sadly, that is the mentality of some of the voting membership and I question whether they are able to effectively vote and remain impartial.
Type: Dangerous behavior
Explanation: Member has pictures that show up on several websites after doing a reverse search.
Originally, there were four very quick votes to delete the referred member but then one "brave" member stepped up and voted NO ABUSE and stated that no "proof" was provided. One of the voting panel members (who normally does not vote) quickly added links and suggested that WE were too lazy to do the research ourselves (I also voted NO ABUSE because no proof was provided). The "brave" member researched the links provided and updated their reason in which they pointed out the links provided as proof, were merely websites similar to SYD/SYC.
YIKES! Really? I know if the site was in the habit of booting members because their pictures were plastered all over the internet and on various different websites, we surely would lose a good number of members.
Case and point, a member was referred to the panel for review because pictures posted 6+ months ago seem to be reflective of him having his wiener in a jar full of maggots. Yeah, it's not my cup of tea, nor is the content of some of the other pictures featured in his gallery. Did he have his wiener shoved in an orifice of a duck, a unicorn, a penguin.....? NO! So what guidelines were broken? NONE!
Yet there are a good number of members voting to delete and MY GUESS is it is just because they find the pictures offensive. As another member pointed out, where do we draw the line? Should we be offended when a member modifies their dick by slicing it open? Or maybe we don't like their piercings? I personally do not like pissing pictures, how about that!? What next, should we refer folks for review and possible deletion when they have a different opinion then our own and post it publicly?
GET REAL, PEOPLE! IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, MOVE ALONG.
As a side note: why do penguins and unicorns always have to be dragged into the mix?
I don't get off on pissing pictures, nor seeing pictures of arms shoved up anyone's ya-ya. I think butts are beautiful but I don't need to get up close and personal with your bunghole. I believe that be.stiality is against the law in all countries so unless someone is/was able to PROVE that the maggot(s) were giving the member a blowjob against their will, the content of the picture did not breach site guidelines.
As for referencing ducks, unicorns and penguins, I really don't know why they popped into my head.
Just a follow up, the 9 year member was not deleted and thank you to all the level headed people who were able to "get this right". If "WE" start deleting people just because something they post offends us, this place will cease to be.
Remember, the burden of proof is on the referring member.
Yes, you have to back up what you say! You can't just refer another member and make a blanket statement that the member is posting pictures that are not theirs or that they are taken from the internet, please provide proof of your claim.
And to the referring members as well as voting members, just a reminder, members DO NOT have to be exclusive to SYD/SYC only. It is possible that you might find their pictures elsewhere because they have posted them elsewhere.
Last point, voting members, you should remain UNBIASED. Whether or not you feel the accused is nice, not nice, troll, etc, that should not have any bearing on your vote. When admin allows members to decide another member's fate based on their personal feelings, he might consider adding a special category, the "I DON'T LIKE THIS MEMBER" category but until then, YOUR VOTE SHOULD BE BASED ON FACTS.
By the way, have you noticed that, here at ShowItOff, the best way to get labeled a "troll" is to disagree with someone?
I'm waiting for the day when admin allows us to refer members for deletion for being straight up ASSWIPES and ASSHATS! I'm going to start writing my list now!
You’re shameless. Old people shouldn’t be here !!
This was posted on one of my pics. It's the only thing i have that i kept of this member. I voted today to delete him because he has been abusive many times to me. Was i correct??,,I really **** to throw someone out. Please,,any comments are welcomed.
We members cannot see conversations where abuse is given. That seems to me should go straight to admin, with copies of the chat log, if the abuse is serious for him to deal with. The comment above is unkind and unpleasant but I would imagine not serious enough for deletion.
I remember a time in November, 2015, when someone referred you, your profile to the evaluation panel for deletion. Do you recall why? You posted a number of Photoshop'd pics as well as straight up internet pics. Based on the FACTS presented, there were a number of members that wanted to delete you. The panel would have been within the guidelines to do so, but it didn't go down like that. You reluctantly removed all pictures, all but one, that directed displeasure toward me. twowarmtts, I'm really having a difficult time understanding that you, of all people, have based your vote on personal reasons and not facts.
Being biased might be natural but you should strive to be unbiased. As for feeling that I am a bitch who has attacks your friends or "site police", that's subjective. I am most certainly guilty of calling certain members ASSWIPES and ASSHATS, yep, I do. And those certain members are guilty of calling me names far worse than that. I do not judge you based on the friends you keep, your clicque, I attempt to judge you without any bias and solely upon our own interactions.
--------------------------------------- added after 8 minutes
Having said that, my intention is not, nor will it ever be, to insult anyone unless they do so first. I noticed that the other members who voted for expulsion did not state a reason, so, to keep you and the other investigative members happy, I changed my vote. Then, being a woman, I changed my mind again and re-voted for expulsion. No reason given.
Yes, I will welcome new members. I've been doing that a long time, long before admin allowed members the opportunity to earn points for doing so. Yep, I was busy welcoming new members while receiving snide remarks from others. Were you aware that some of your friends have followed suit? For sure, their welcome messages are worded very similar to mine.
I think I've stated quite clearly, in my bio, that I consider myself to be more of a voyeur than exhibitionist. I don't feel the need nor desire to present myself in any other light.
As for policing and investigating all complaints, ALL complaints? Hardly not. I feel that being involved in the evaluation panel is a privilege. It was and is time for members to open their eyes and see that some members are deleted for flimsy and frivolous reasons. Thank goodness that there are open minded members who realize that everything is not black or white.
And as for me, my life, surrounding myself with ass kissers, no, thank you, that is definitely not for me.
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
By the way, there's no need for you to vote on my picture. I gave you your points back by way of a 15 point "donation".
It's rather sad that some of the voting members have ZERO TOLERANCE to other members that post internet pictures, no "hall pass", no warning, no leniency, NO FORGIVENESS!
What are your thoughts with regard to members posting internet pictures?
"The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641), and was composed of Privy Councillors andcommon-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courtsin civil and criminal matters. The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.
In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. 'Star Chamber' can also be used in its original meaning, for instance when a politician uses parliamentary privilege to attack a powerful organisation or person.[a]"
And how the name relates to the evaluation panel, previously, it seemed as if a member was referred to the evaluation panel for any reason, that member was swiftly banned and deleted. Was the banning legitimate? Just my opinion, in some situations it was excessive and overkill. The piece about the Star Chamber being established to ensure "the fair enforcement of laws" really fits what the evaluation panel was set up to do but the evaluation panel fell short of doing.
Now, specifically in the case of the 7 year member, the member was contacted, the member has removed the picture(s) yet we still have members that do not want to be "forgiving" and stand firm with their vote to proceed with deletion.
I really don't care if a member posts pics of others but they should say they are photos derived from other sources.
I am one who goes by the 3 strikes and your out. Give the person a chance to explain why. There may be a valid reason.
I understand if the pic is copyrighted, unless they themselves own the copyright.
If someone finds my posts offensive they only need to tell me and I surely will remove them. In fact, I think I will put that in my profile!
Are the "site police" members that search for and report fakes (those posting internet pictures) OR do you feel the "site police" are the members that decide the fate of the members reported?
/abuse_reports.php
/member.php?w=312152
From what he posted, it looks like his character was already deformed before she posted his rants in public...
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
Here's the thing:
If you are going to say nasty, racist things to a person in private--and, make no mistake, that shit was pretty damn nasty!--then cry like a fucking baby and try to get them deleted when they show your true colors to the rest of the site, YOU are the one who deserves to be deleted.
In my opinion, it really wasn't necessary to freeze the voting for this referral because it appeared that the reported member did not do anything wrong that would warrant deletion. It baffled me that the member that froze all voting went in and deleted his NO ABUSE vote. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo......
/suspicious.php
So, either we are to assume that asianbabe asked him to send a bunch of misogynistic, racist messages, or that he feels it is okay for HIM to send unwanted messages but it is out of line for others to do the same to him.
Some background, the member referred has been deleted multiple times but continues to create new profiles from time to time. Apparently, the concern of this profile is that it may be a profile established for "revenge porn".
Getting back to the referral, it seems to me that if this profile is a known fake to admin, he would have deleted it immediately, with no regret. But admin did not delete the profile and what was interesting in his referral, he suggested that we contact the member to request a "verification" picture. I did contact the member 2+ days ago but the member has not been online in over 3 days. I have never liked or supported the idea of deleting a member without giving them the benefit of doubt and the option of correcting the problem.
I hope that the reported member returns sooner than later because the voting members are chomping at the bits to get this profile deleted.
It's not always porn. It just happens to be porn on this site, because it's a sex site. But I had several sites with funny pics and it was very annoying that some individuals posted photos of someone they h@te with degrading titles and/or comments. Not necessarily exes, sometimes they post their bosses or colleagues, their rivals may be, both male and female. But females get this more often. And some are so butthurt that they keep re-posting same shit for years. I saw same pics appearing with degrading comments over and over through 8 fucking years.
This bonnie38 is indeed a male created account. Note that he bothered to title every pic as "Bonnie". Also, something you can't see - this account does not reply to private messages. Not a single reply. No public comments either. So what do you think is a purpose of the poster considering that they are not interested in any interaction?
And thanks for pointing it out.
Did the member fail to produce a verification picture and was deleted through the normal voting process?
--------------------------------------- added after 16 hours
Maybe I'm not going to get a response.....
Look at the upload on my page, a member feels that based on where Laura Lopez lives, this profile was fake and created as an attempt to bring shame to her. Also, because he found something on Yandex, a Russian server. Quite frankly, I didn't understand what I was supposed to see. I didn't understand the significance of the "degrading titles and/or comments". I just didn't UNDERSTAND and that's why I was hoping to receive a response.
Although I was not familar with the profile of bonnie38, I gathered that admin deleted said profile because he thanked you for pointing the member out to him and because each photo was titled "Bonnie", because the member did not reply to any private message or post any public comment.
And when you mention to the reporting member that they have offered no proof, they get irritated, like "what the what are you talkin' about"?
Evidence provided by the whistle-blower is a convenience; LACK OF SAID EVIDENCE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE REPORT, NOR THE ALLEGED INFRACTION. Any member voting on the basis that no evidence was handed to them is in dereliction of their duties and should have their voting privileges revoked.
Any member voting without due diligence on their behalf is likewise misusing their privilege and should be prevented from having a say.
All reports determined to be valid should be elevated to the Admin for final arbitration and disposition.
In the instance I am referring, the whistle-blower CLAIMED that a male member was posting pictures of a female without her knowledge. That's a mighty big accusation and the whistle-blower only provided evidence after a series of back and forth messages.
He-said/she-said exchanges (esp. in private) can never be decided by users of the site; only the Admin would have the ability corroborate such a claim. Any such abuses should be reported to the Admin directly and exclusively his domain; the abuse panel is not an appropriate venue to vet such reports.
Admin should again have final adjudication as to the appropriate action.
Your concerns are valid, perhaps you should provide admin with your thoughts and concerns on the matters that need to be improved and do so via private message or post them here and perhaps he will make the appropriate changes.
I've said, here in this very thread and to the Admin directly, that abuse reports should not lead to immediate deletion but to a 'suspension' and review by the Admin. This action would, I feel, greatly reduce the issues that present themselves among voters on abuse reports.
But this does not exculpate voting members of the responsibility to properly research before voting, nor to recognize the limits of their abilities and responsibly pass along their duties, as warranted.
What I can say is that there seems to be a drop-off in referrals as well as members being deleted for some cockemamie reason. I'm not sure if that is because all the riff raff was previously deleted OR whether the panel members are or are not doing their due diligence.
You are correct in what you say,but it is too much to expect from your 'average member' most people don't live here...
Type: **** Images Member CA$HGOETTIN Reported by **** at 23,Aug 10:44 Rating: -2
Explanation: Member is looking for PAID sex...
Please note the reason/explanation of the referral is because the SYC member is "looking for PAID sex..."
If you visit the reported member's page, she states that she is a "cash princess" (whatever that means).
The voting is somewhat mixed only because the voting members don't know whether it is against the site guidelines to use SYD/SYC as an avenue to sell something, whether it be sex, dirty underwear, etc.
This is in part, a recent response to message exchanges between admin and I. He said; "Consider this site a free for all club or cafeteria and I'm just it's manager. When you go to drink coffee to Starbucks with your friends, you do not need a set of instructions, you just need a common sense. Well, at least I hope this is so... And if every visitor uses common sense you won't even see a manager. They appear only when there is some trouble or service problem. And that's how I would like to be here - only be called when there is a real problem...."
My common sense tells me that Craigslist would be more suited to meet the needs of a "cash princess" but I voted ABUSE HAS NO GROUND.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 hours
I was hoping that admin would comment on this.
If I see "the member sells used panties" in the complaint I just ignore it. If I see "the member spams with proposition to buy used panties" - I will verify and if I find more than a couple of such messages I will surely ban the account.
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
As long as you don't Spam it. You can sell and advertise whatever the hell you want.
Also, a handy hint for folks who post their pics on multiple sites: If you are posting a pic of your junk here which you have previously posted on another site, crop the picture to eliminate that site's watermark before posting it on SYD. Trust me, that little measure will save you from a lot of hassle in the long run.
I can see what JustWill is saying but it's a shame if people have to go to these lengths to avoid the "web-derived-image" accusation!....whilst not denying there will be spurious accounts here, we are all adults so can we not be left to make our own minds up?....
Members who post here and elsewhere are all tarred with the same brush, it would seem! Grr!!
Second part ,I'm gonna have to disagree Will,just because of my personal views...I'm here to have a laugh,show my stuff ,chat with open minded people and all those pics with watermarks from other sites confuses things....
Cropping pics is not necessary if you are actually the person who owns the pics,also it's more likely that a pic has been taken from another site without that persons consent...
If you are on another site with the same pics,it's easy to show you are the account holder just log in and take a screenshot of your username on that site...
I would rather talk to genuine people.not just a fake,having images with watermarks from other sites just makes me stay away from those accounts...
I would rather the site is known for it's genuine members than all the crap to do with fakes....I can spot them,so it's not really a big deal for me...
But I'm just highlighting my own views on this.
I've heard there are some members who have received private messages sent with the intention of updating them on who's "bad".
Have they gone past their "sell by" date?
I'd really like to see THAT list.
They sound like the kind of folks I'd like to hang out with.
I wonder if the group received an updated message stating that there are actually 8 bad guys now?
Number of members whom **** has blacklisted: 8
Just because you can no longer see when people explain why you are an
Over the many years that I've been a member, there has been a good amount of dialog and concern over Photoshop pictures. Do you have an opinion on Photoshop? Where is line drawn? How different OR is there any difference in the member(s) who enhances their "goodies" versus the member who inserts their face(?) and uses the body of another?
Type: Copyright/Stolen Member Gayboy122 Reported by **** at 29,Feb 20:27 Rating: 3
Violating Images:
Explanation: This is undoubtedly copyrighted material. I recognize several on the men in this photo, in particular Langdon Conrad, standing, second from right.
ABUSE HAS NO GROUND 29,Feb 23:01 By **** No comment presented
DELETE THIS MEMBER 01,Mar 00:13 By ****
internet pix, booo
DELETE THIS MEMBER 01,Mar 00:25 By ****
all over the net
DELETE THIS MEMBER 01,Mar 05:21 By **** No comment presented
DELETE THIS MEMBER 01,Mar 05:42 By eduard99
Where is bella?
I decided to send eduard99 the following private message;
Mar 1, 06:24 bella!: No need for you to be concerned about where I am at, continue to send gifts and messages of adoration to the fake profiles, the men posing as women.
Poor eduard99's feelings must be very, very tender because ol' eduard99 blacklisted me. What's the matter eduard99, did you get all hurty about spending 100 points and then sending the roses to a fake profile? What's the matter, you can dish it out but can't take it?
WTH!?#@?! Surely you've noticed the member who enjoys being naked and posts pictures of themself with their only friends, their beloved dogs. How is it that "they" are able to justify that their pictures are appropriate but the other member's pictures are not?
🐝🐝🐝
Spot the difference ????????
This is the fast track scenario, a brand new SYC member uploads 4 pictures and 1 picture was found by you-know-who on the Internet. You-know-who posts a message on the member's wall requesting that she removes "web derived" picture as that is against site guidelines. The member reads the message, deletes the picture in question, yet you-know-who's cronies still vote to delete. WTF!? What does it take to make these numb nuts happy?
Type: Copyright/Stolen Member **** Reported by **** at 19,Feb 09:31 Rating: -2
Explanation: hello, i've ask of this member to remove a comment he posted under his own name about myself, ask of him to remove nicely no action on his part has been done. this will fall under defamation of character, i've download and took photo shots of his page. need for him to remove all in all not just deducting points as punishment, i like it on here now i'm not feeling cormfortable. really don't want to take legal action on this matter
ABUSE HAS NO GROUND 19,Feb 10:10 By ****;
There was a message written by woopeeweed420 on his profile page alluding to 176, I wrote to him suggesting he deletes it which has been done so problem solved.
Well, well, well.....you-know-who actually wrote for "more details". WHY does you-know-who feel [s]he needs more information for something that is not a matter for the panel to consider AND WHY was the comment edited to remove the fact that s[he] contacted the reporting member for "more details"?
--------------------------------------- added after 10 minutes
Yes, the URL is visible however it is a private picture so we cannot fully grasp the intent of the sender without seeing the conversation. I have attached a portion of the conversation between the two members, they were apparently role playing, he asked her for her name and a face pic. She obliged and when asked whether that was "her", she said yes. Jan 9, 20:30 the_hard_0ne: well...the text structure kinda crashed. is there any better wa to forward you a copy of the conversation? Jan 9, 20:29 the_hard_0ne: Jan 9, 20:18 dirtyandwet: No. What? Jan 9, 20:17 the_hard_0ne: no Jan 9, 20:17 dirtyandwet: Hello Jan 9, 20:04 dirtyandwet: Yes Jan 9, 20:03 the_hard_0ne: and this is you on this pic? ****** so yes, the member did represent an internet picture as being her.
Policing private conversations and uploads is admin's responsibility....no one else's...
--------------------------------------- added after 14 minutes
Didn't you get pissy with John for policing private pictures ?????? oh the irony....you are the female version of John...
I always like your emoticon responses to me,shows I hit a nerve...
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
I find it funny how you make no comment in this thread when you are the one leading the way to push for deletion on the panel...hmmm...
My vote to delete was based on admin's guidelines;
If the abuse is not grave please try to convince the member to delete the pics in question before deleting him entirely Last phrase is meant for profiles posting internet porn as internet porn, i.e. who do not pretend to be people on those photos or friends of those people. It is NOT meant for accounts that start their life on the site posting internet porn pretending it's them.
The last sentence, "It is NOT meant for accounts that start their life on the site posting internet porn pretending it's them." is why my vote was to delete. Did dirtyandwet really "post" the picture, no, it was a private picture. Did [s]he "pretend" it was her, yes.
I recognize that sometimes I get it right and sometimes, not but in this instance, I stand behind my vote.
Policing private messages and uploads is what you just did...
Does admins guidelines cover private uploads ?if you stand behind your vote you should be banned from voting on the panel for what you just did...
Admin doesn't censor private correspondence so what gives you the right to do it ? you get so pissy when John does exactly what you just did,and I would call him out on it too,so I am doing it to you in fairness....it was a horseshit call in my view....
Here is my thought,Why couldn't there be a category for (internet photos I like) in the up load section? Then people could upload photos from the internet with out a problem.
Along with some guide lines on how to do it correctly.
1)all internet photos to be placed here.
2)If posted under any other caption person gets a notice and 24 hours to change the category or face deletion.
3) Photo must state that it is not a photo of them self but of some thing/or who they like.
I'm sure it would have to be put to admin for approval and tweaked so as for it to work on this site.
But I think it would work so long as EVERY ONE abides by the rules.
If any one has any additional thoughts,please feel free to add them here.
Just my thoughts as to how to eliminate an ongoing issue.
Since most internet photos are copyrighted, you are not allowed to repost them on a public site such as this, without the express permission of the owner of the photo, which I doubt virtually anybody gets. Therefore the category you are proposing is still trouble.
This is exactly why it would not work. The key words being EVERY ONE.
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. ~ Eldridge Cleaver
I came up with. I refuse to be involved with all the childish antics that happens within the review panel,and this was my way
of hoping to resolve the problem!
It is a shame that so many ADULTS act in this manner!!
/forum/thread.php?id=316
"Especially beware of the members who post fakes from the internet instead of their own pics. A person who uses fakes is dishonest by default and thus unreliable and unpredictable by default."
/faq.html
"Legally you can post only the pics you have legal rights for. Generally those are pics of yourself you made personally or pics of other persons you made personally and have their implicit permission to publish the photos.
It's not exactly legal and is not permitted to post pics taken from internet on this site as in 99.99% cases you do not have authorization of the producer of those pics to publish them.
However, the site administration cannot know all the millions pics in internet and in most cases cannot tell if the pics are your own or taken from the net. Which means that only in case when someone report stolen/internet pics to the administration or in case when administration accidentally notice stolen/internet pics the account that posted them gets deleted.
If you notice someone posting internet pics, you can always report this. There is a "report abuse" button below every pic and a "report member" button on every member page.
Also, the administration cannot just take your word on it without any proof. Indeed if the member has obviously internet pics from different sources, proper actions will be taken. But in other cases the administration require some kind of proof - links to the pages with original images for example."
with emphasis on "Indeed if the member has obviously internet pics from different sources, proper actions will be taken."
/forum/thread.php?id=24475
Or this, which is posted on the Abuse page;
If the abuse is not grave please try to convince the member to delete the pics in question before deleting him entirely Last phrase is meant for profiles posting internet porn as internet porn, i.e. who do not pretend to be people on those photos or friends of those people. It is NOT meant for accounts that start their life on the site posting internet porn pretending it's them.
Or this, it was a response I received via a private message that I sent;
Dec 6, 22:21 admin: I do not care much about people posting internet pics unless they are pretending to be someone they are not, but I also do not care if non-paid member who does not have many friends gets deleted for posting them. I did not care if this member stays or gets deleted so I let members decide this and that's my consistency in this particular case.
Dec 6, 22:01 bella!: Too late, he has been deleted.
Dec 6, 21:58 bella!: What about **** and ****, those two post Internet pics and I know that **** cannot be reported. There's no consistency with what you will allow or tolerate.
So as of 12-06-2015, his position is that he does not care much UNLESS they are pretending to be someone they are not.
The Admin's ***OFFICIAL*** position is pretty gosh-darn clear (his personal position may not reflect his official position)
And, because I know you will attack over the forum link I posted, I posted that because members are directed to read it on the member support page (which makes it an official admin message for me).
/support.php
Admin doesn't direct members to read the forum post you linked or his PM to you.
As I know you like to think of yourself as a thinker and reasonable person Bella, I'm sure the above logic will make perfect sense to you!
So, you are saying all those posts of yours are lies with your reply above?!
In the event that it wasn't actually you then I apologize for any trauma on your part from the incident.
I have no wish to get on anyones bad side here, but I can snark with the best of them when I need to.
The members should be removed from the "abuse" process, save reporting -- this is Admin's site and he should be the final arbiter of all member's status'.
Finally end all this bullshit...
People take things to seriously; Being able to vote on member's fate should be taken seriously. 1) It's sad that there is/are member(s) that get pissy when things don't progress their way. 2) It's sad that member(s) send private messages to their supporters/friends belittling member(s) because of the vote that is made. 3) It's sad that admin has stated that he really does not care whether internet pictures are posted as long as it not the intention of the poster of being deceptive. 4) It's sad that even when admin's thoughts are printed clearly on the evaluation page that some voting members pretty much say, "fu@k-it" I'm going rogue and will disregard what his guidelines are. 5) It's sad that when the reported member removes the "violating" picture(s) that there are still the same group of panel members that will continue to vote to delete! What's up with that?
Yes, there are cliques, yes, there is infighting and complaining. I would like to think that you will reconsider weighing in on the evaluation panel without fear of being assaulted for not "voting properly". Everyone's vote does matter!
Another interesting and busy day for the evaluation panel.
Please note that one member, who posts pictures found on the Internet, reported another member for posting a picture from the Internet. This is like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? The reported member does not claim the picture to be of him and on another matter, admin said the following;
Dec 6, 22:21 admin: I do not care much about people posting internet pics unless they are pretending to be someone they are not, but I also do not care if non-paid member who does not have many friends gets deleted for posting them. I did not care if this member stays or gets deleted so I let members decide this and that's my consistency in this particular case.
I'm not sure whether the panel members aren't convinced that the reported member has enough friends or whether they've checked with admin to see if the reported member has ever paid. Hmmmmmmm........
A 2+ year member was also reported for posting a picture found on the Internet. She was contacted by a panel member and deleted the "offending" picture, yet the POSSE continues to vote to delete. What the heck!?#!@
--------------------------------------- added after 4 hours
Looks like one of the voting members decided to retract her delete vote when Big9inch21 questioned why members still continued to vote to delete once the "violation" was resolved by way of the picture being deleted. Apparently, some voting members will be fair only after they are called out on their actions.
These are the blogs that were reported as objectionable.
/blogs/28393.html
/blogs/28394.html
--------------------------------------- added after 23 hours
Is a particular member stalking or attempting to intimidate new members?
If nothing else, he's not being truthful. The member was referred to the evaluation panel because of what BB perceived to be racist and sexist blogs but panel members were in agreement, the new member was only stating her preference. BB, why harass her or any of the new membership? Why not create your own website, call it DOGS, DUDES and NUDES and monitor it to your heart's content.
/blogs/28399.html
STOP HARASSING MEMBERS!
Big Bother was busy today, yes, busy protecting the site from, you guessed it, "fakes". Big Bother fails to realize that admin is not adverse to members posting pictures from the internet as long as they do not claim to be them. It's so sad that he thinks that he or his posse provide the ultimate due process. They just fail to recognize that they are not following admin's guidelines and I'm waiting for them to f-up and delete someone without just cause......
By the way, if anyone received a private message from Big Bother referring to me the Defender of Fakes, I would really like to assume the title of PHoenix of PHairness or Feenix of Fairness......
Do members really get deleted for a private picture ?
I guess they do now....
--------------------------------------- added after 26 minutes
And this is posted on the reported members page...
JohnS wrote (Nov 20, 01:05):
Please delete the web derived images, both public and private, including the female on the beach as that is against group rules.
Oh John.....where do get your authority to tell people that they cannot post web pics in private ?.....
The picture was PRIVATE.
Big Bother loathes private things of all kinds.
Funny that when Big Bother has his private stuff mentioned how much of a hissy fit he throws....
And interesting referral made yesterday.... a member was referred to the evaluation panel for "Il.legal image" because the female looked un.derage. The picture was not titled to suggest a tender age therfore, no proof. The first voting member voted to delete with the comment that the reported member's gallery had Internet pics. I voted NO ABUSE with the comment that there was no proof that the member was un,derage and *IF* he was being referred for posting web derived pic, links should have been provided.
Fast forward to today, guess who went through 14 pages, yes, PAGES of the member's gallery and found external links. But the comment provided made me laugh; "How many of you actually bothered to check the gallery......"
made my own decision and voted accordingly
I voted NO ABUSE.... on the original complaint
I'm curious if anyone has ever been on a real jury. You cannot factor in anything other than the charges and the facts presented. NOTHING ELSE. My vote was not made because of a few jpeg pictures presented 8 votes in but on the original charge made, that the picture uploaded looked like someone too young ( and that picture was removed ). I wonder who uploaded the 3 additional pictures that were later presented and are being voted on?
--------------------------------------- added after 5 minutes
What I also found amusing is that one of the links provided was a selfie site. Can you imagine being deleted for posting on a selfie site!
only registered users can see external links
Please see what's going on today.
As you will see, a brand new member has posted a picture from another member's gallery. What's interesting is that the first voting member has identified that the picture was originally posted by bk12345, /member.php?w=7988 AND that the reported member had uploaded other web derived pictures. What the what is going on? Why did the first member vote NO ABUSE? He consistently refers questionable members aka "fakes" on a daily basis yet when presented with a picture stealing fake, he votes NO ABUSE. This inconsistency and sour grapes attitude has got to stop and because of that, I have sent a private message to admin stating so. The member's voting privileges need to be revoked and revoked immediately.
--------------------------------------- added after 23 minutes
Aww, you were too late because the spineless asshat has gone in and amended his vote. I wonder if me contacting admin then sending him/JohnS confirmation that I had done so. But it's your lucky day, I saved the ORIGINAL vote and the ORIGINAL comment. For your reading pleasure.....
: Type: Copyright/Stolen Member pussylover Reported by palunko at 27,Oct 09:52 Rating: 0
Violating Images:
Explanation: I think this member post pics of other members, for example //showitoff.org/rx9f2leuk61zpic.htmlsame as /pvmb0tj9wj7wpic.html and other pics also from some members like this one/y1isns9dhl6xpic.html only I can't remember that member...
ABUSE HAS NO GROUND 27,Oct 10:08 By JohnS
The above image can also be seen in the gallery of another member "bk12345". Also a gallery perusal reveals links to external websites on other images. I will leave this matter to the relevant people for their investigation.
--------------------------------------- added after 26 minutes
By the way JohnS, we don't leave messages requesting that members who steal another member's pictures, we just delete them. OR DID YOU FORGET, OLD MAN?
An interesting referral and a decent debate going on. As I commented with my vote, this is NOT the type of picture that I find appealing and admin does provide a "Tortured Dick" category. Clearly, this is a Photoshop'd picture so here's the dilemma that I find. Should we, as voting members, regard ALL Photoshop pictures in the same light OR only those that have gone "too far"? Then there's "too far", what is "too far"?
Keep an eye on member, potty, let's watch how this unravels for this 18 month + member.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 hours
The vote is at a +4 with 32 members voting.
It looks like you're going to be deleted, potty, member #454181. It's unfortunate that you will be deleted without even knowing why or given the opportunity to correct the perceived problem. Unfortunately, that's the way things happen around here, members are blindsided and deleted without being given notification and as quickly as possible.
Your Photoshop pictures offended many because you went "too far".
Let me put it another way: even the WORD 'bl00d' is censored on this site. A photo of a bl00dy penis, even simulated, should be no different.
And let's take it a step further, as maybe the objection is that it's ONLY a photoshop: should that matter? What if it's ONLY a photoshop with another member? Or with YOU? Or with a K!D??
Seems to me, if it's not permitted on this site, even the fantasy of it is not permitted.
Now, I'll shed no tears over members who've been voted out by the community, but perhaps a suggestion for Admin: when a member accumulates enough votes against them on an abuse report, their account should be immediately SUSPENDED (ie removed from public viewing) until YOU (Admin) have personally reviewed a deletion referral.
It should ultimately be Admin's call, anyways. If nothing else it would curb these playground politics and give all referrals equal footing.
It is sad that members are referred to the evaluation panel for deletion for flimsy reasons and it is equally sad that a good number of those referrals are deleted. Personally, I'm not interested in "tortured dick", it doesn't appeal to me at any level and I've said this before, I am not aroused or interested in seeing pissing pictures streamed on the "normal" page, either.
Clearly, "too far" is a subjective term and the voting members already have problems with the guidelines given by admin. With that said, I would be interested if you elaborated on the "playground politics". Thank you.
Geez, was I wrong! I thought I would wake up this morning to find a SYC member on the chopping block because her parts were found elsewhere. In another thread found in the Dumpster, a member identified yet another member as the SYD Pecker Inspector. The identified member not only inspects peckers and lady parts, add nicknames, too!
Let's watch and see what develops with his new referral.
--------------------------------------- added after 13 hours
It is sad that some of the voters don't understand the ramifications involved based on their BIASED vote.
Please notice that a longtime and active female member has been referred to the evaluation panel for deletion for posting "il.legal images". Please notice the date on those pictures, October, 2012, 3 years ago. What could be behind her profile name, is it an amateur website?
It took 3 long years of diligent investigative skills to root her out BUT she has finally been exposed!
Keep your eyes on this member and her offense to see how the membership votes!
Please read the anonymous message posted on her wall, it's at the top, the one immediately below JohnS's post advising her that it's against the site rules to post pictures that she does not personally own.
anonymous wrote
You should not allow your chat room to be used to discuss and attack other members.
I would love to know who her anonymous poster is (
--------------------------------------- added after 6 hours
Glad to say that the voting members got it right! Woo Hoo!
If you're curious who the active, longtime female member was who posted "il.legal" pictures that reflected another website's information behind her SYC nickname, it was ( yeah, I'm going to tell you as soon as her Homeland Security backs off and her pictures are removed from America's Most Wanted list......
/member.php?w=308404
(Everyone knows that the place to do that sort of thing is MAIN chat.)
It's also amusing when folks don't have the balls to post under their user name. When an anonymous, ball-less coward leaves a note on your page, it isn't worth the time wasted in reading it.
If you give that some thought, that would probably answer who the ball-less wonder is, no?
An interesting referral made to the evaluation panel today. How will voting members address a member accused of posting a picture that was found on an amateur website? At the time that I originally voted, there were already 2 votes to delete, I voted NO ABUSE and added this comment;
"Although I have my doubts about the validity of a member posting one picture, the website that this picture was found on IS AN AMATEUR WEBSITE. SYD/SYC membership is not contingent upon exclusivity to SYD or SYC."
As you can see, the voting members are split in how they feel but what I find objectionable are the additional comments that are not related to the referral.
only registered users can see external links
Out of curiosity, did you Google Brittany O'Neil? I did and I did not find the young "woman" that posted one picture on SYC. Unless I did not dig deep enough, Google states Brittany O'Neil is 44 years old, the picture is not representative of a 44 year old.
Hey, my gripe isn't about the report itself, or about how members voted, it is about the additional comments that aren't related to the referral and that are definitely not needed. That's all......
"...accounts that start their life on the site posting internet porn pretending it's them."
I understand your logic and where you're coming from, the profile states she's 18 years old yet Internet pictures go back to 2013. As I said, I have doubts about the profile being legitimate BUT....do I cast my vote based on my "gut feelings" or based on concrete facts?
This basically adresses the larger point of your complaint against this abuse report -- specifically, that the evidence of the abuse that's been provided doesn't constitute "proof" -- I would like to repeat my response to Admin on this thread:
/forum/thread.php?id=24475
""“Admin: links to anonymous image sharing boards, sites like this one or personal blogs can't be a proof. You never know who taken from where.”"
If you meant for the panel to evaluate members as ‘fakes’ then you severely undercut them with this statement. Literally any website without a copyright is disqualified from consideration.
The popularity and ubiquity of ‘anonymous image sharing’ sites means that they are the primary sources of private images on the internet -- if a member were to misrepresent themselves here, and post images that they do not have express permission to post, the overwhelming likelihood is that they derived the image from one of “anonymous image sharing boards, sites like this one or personal blogs.”
**THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF YOUR STATEMENT is that whenever a member posts to this site an image that can be found elsewhere on the internet, the posting member must be assumed to either be the subject of the image, or have the permission of the subject. Moreover, when evaluating a submission to the panel, voters cannot rely on ANY site that is not copy-righted as evidence**
Seriously, think about it: there are members here who would post images they do not have explicit permission to post. **How are we supposed to identify those members?? With what can we support our position??**"
Saved another fake! I'm happy for ya!!
"As you can see, the voting members are split in how they feel but what I FIND OBJECTIONABLE are the additional comments that are not related to the referral."
For those who are interested in today's referral and voting of the abuse report/evaluation panel. Yes, the pictures posted are web derived, yes, the titles would suggest that the posting member *might* be trying to trying to pass these off as his but he has been a member for almost one year and hasn't been online for almost 24 hours.
The same members continue to vote to delete the offending member without the benefit of deleting the pictures in question AND the same members continue to want to give the member the opportunity to weigh the option of deleting the pictures or having his profile deleted.....
And in the same time, several people who deleted their profiles specified as a reason "too many fakes".
Regrettably I see no any pattern what I could do to stop them leaving. Their reasons as you see may be completely opposite and irrelevant to site structure and performance.
I frequently make purchases online and in the event I don't want that product, when it is returned I am asked "why?"
It's disappointing that only 20% of the departing members provide you feedback and what's even more disappointing is that so many members speak in gibberish!
Does it really surprise you that many people do not read carefully?
That is just hilarious!
The last vote, which happened to be NO ABUSE was at 13:47. Let's see how this will unravel......
An interesting 24 hours plus in the Star Chamber. Members being referred because their age appears tenuous and because some of their pictures appear on the Internet on amateur sites.
Can you believe that, members posting pictures on other sites!? One voting member went as far in their investigation to determine that the referred member uploaded 13 pictures in 5 minutes. With that mindset, members need to be cautious when uploading pictures....please don't go too fast, just because.....
I wonder if it was I who was referred.
Wait a minute, how long did it take you to upload those pictures?
DELETE THIS MEMBER 31,Aug 11:47 By ****
"Tiff Tiff" uploaded 13 pics in 5 minutes - pics that are already spread around the world. I dont understand why people cudgel their brains for keeping those fakes here.
This is more reasonable....this member could only upload 12 pictures in 9 minutes /member.php?w=497121
It is what it is....
To make an example - you may still find old images of "little Lupe" on google. See yourself. She's about 30 now and a singer, and many photos of her you will see are not so young anymore, but there are still old photos of her that looks way too young. There was even a case when a man almost got in prison for having those photos on his PC but it got kinda famous and she personally came to the trial and testified. She surely was over 18.
It's no wonder that people find models like that on the net and post those photos here like their own, because on this site young-looking bodies also attract attention. Naturally they get reported for looking too young sooner or later, because they really do - that was the whole purpose of people who produced them. Then reviewers take a closer look at them and see they are taken from the net. The member is deleted for using stolen photos. Nothing wrong with this.
It seems as though the member that referred Tiff-Tiff, spends an inordinate amount of time scrutinizing the pictures of SYC members and often times his "evidence" is nothing more than amateur sites, jpeg photos, blogs, tumblr, etc. I find it absurd to think that new members haven't posted elsewhere OR the possibility that someone admired the picture(s) and re-posted it in a blog or somewhere else.
I was looking at the new members and found this post, his post on a new female member's wall;
**** wrote
Please be aware that this may be a spammer.
What is the purpose of his post? If any of her pictures were found on the Internet, she would have already been referred to the evaluation panel for deletion, so that's not the problem. Is he warning members not to send her points, money, private pictures, WHAT? The word *MIGHT* says it all, he has no clue. Is the new member being profiled and targeted because she is Russian or just because she is a female?
Yes, in the end, the general concensus of the evaluation panel was to delete Tiff-Tiff and now she is gone.
On another matter, I think the capital "S" that the referring member sports in his profile name really stands for "Savior", our own true life, SYD/SYC Internet Savior!
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
I think this one was a good call. Just my opinion
--------------------------------------- added after 13 minutes
I'm not sure of the site rules and if a member should be deleted for stealing other members pics. All I simply asked from Tiff-Tiff was to please remove the pic. Made no difference to us if they stayed. But all I got from Tiff-Tiff was a deletion and being blacklisted.
Court sessions were held in public, although witnesses and defendants were examined in se.cret.[1] Defendants were given prior notice of the charges against them, and had the right to be represented by an attorney.[2] Evidence was presented in writing. Over time, the Star Chamber evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and its courts.
It is thought that in the past, the evaluation panel was run like the Star Chamber. Although things might look they are being handled on the up and up, matters were being handled in a se.cretive manner, that members were being deleted swiftly for petty or possibly unfounded reasons.
Getting back to the matter of Tiff-Tiff, for the most part, I will look at the evidence presented to determine whether it's "legit". I can honestly say that for the most part, when I attempt to validate the information presented, I do not study the pictures that intently and I do not believe that the many voting members that voted after me caught that discrepancy either. It was nothing intentional.
I can offer you this thought, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. When you attemped to resolve this matter member to member and for your trouble, you were blacklisted, you could have and should have reached out to admin for assistance. I will honestly say that my vote was solely based on the reporting member questioning the validity of her age as well as the one picture that circled back to an amateur site, tumblr and jpeg....
Sep 7, 01:39 bella!: Thank you.
Sep 7, 01:33 ****: L
Sep 7, 01:32 ****: Done! Thanks for the warning!
Sep 7, 01:24 ****: Will do
Sep 6, 20:39 bella!: Hi. I'm asking you to delete all Internet pictures before your profile is referred to the evaluation panel for deletion. You've been a member for such a long time, it would be ashame if you were to be deleted for posting pictures that you do not own. Thank you.
A member has been referred to the Star Chamber because she must be a fake. WHY? Her profile says she's 26 years old but the referring member seems to think her cooter looks 56! Oye!
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
Well.....either 3 votes came in very quickly OR admin waved his magic wand!
Like "cool" stories written by members who forgot their password and want to delete their own (usually fake) profile and are too stupid to just ask. "I'm a mother of this boy and his friend shown me this page, he's under.age and I'll go to police if you do not delete it". Or "It's my girlfriend, she's under 13 (wut???) and I have already reported you to FBI and Interpol" (about some photos that look way over 30).
Or some religious Indian or Arab with butthurt who abuse one profile after another with the same stupid false reason for every one of them. Like I cannot see they are a bunch of reports from the same person with exactly the same false reason.
All this stupidity, however, does not negate the fact that at least 75% of female profiles here are fake and most of them never reported, unless burned someone's ass in chat.
If you would kindly indulge me, how is possible to send you "anonymous" reports? It would seem impossible to do so. No, on second thought, I don't want to know.
On another note, you can be quite humorous. The last sentence made me laugh aloud.... "at least 75% of female profiles here are fake and most of them never reported, unless burned someone's ass in chat." It was actually the unless burned someone's ass in chat that had me laughing. Ain't that the truth! Thanks for the laugh!
Let's see what's going on today.
Currently, there's two members that are being evaluated, one because he's interested in "inzzest" and one because she's "fake". What's interesting is that the member and Saviour that REFERRED the female for being "fake" voted not to delete the member that spunked all over his aunt's ass. Is that messed up!?
--------------------------------------- added after 5 hours
You know, I have to wonder if the member who was referred to the evaluation panel for deletion because of his interest in discussing "inzzest" would have been handled quicker if it was a referral made by someone other than the member who made it. That probably sounds more complicated than what it really is....but to break it down, one prominent member who is always concerned about morals and "donkey votes", cast a donkey vote himself. WHY, YOU ASK? Simple, he doesn't like the member that made the referral. Can you imagine that!?
According to the new guidelines published in the current issue of HYPOCRITES WEEKLY, they are only "donkey votes" if OTHER people cast them.
(I'm not sure why anyone would want to vote for a donkey.)
There's only one issue that has not been resolved in the Star Chamber, it the matter of the girl with modified eyes. What's funny is "someone" *wink*, *wink*, that posted an anonymous messages on the referred member's wall, warning others that she's FAKE........ Could it be Captain Asshat?
anonymous wrote (Sep 5, 10:35):
Please be aware this is a FAKE account, it is a the latest return of a regular fake. If you comment you are only doing so to a fake.
I referred Justin Bieber to the Star Chamber and he was deleted quickly. Regardless of how hot anyone believes their pictures are and how confident anyone believes that other members will love them, Justin has been deleted and will NOT be able to visit their page unless he does so anonymously.
Yep.
The folks in the Star Chamber are just little rays of sunshine.
NO PLACE FOR HOMOPHOBIA, FASCISM, SEXISM, RACISM OR IDIOTS !
I guess he doesn't live the words he wrote. Disappointing,very disappointing......
Yesterday, a member was referred to the Star Chamber by a guy who accused them of stealing and posting other member's pics. The case was dismissed, because there weren't even any pictures posted on the reported member's page.
Today, the guy who filed the bogus report was deleted...because all of the pictures posted on HIS page were stolen.
Another "interesting" referral to the Star Chamber. Please note the reason the member was referred.... "You may remember the silly tattoo from our last encounter". So the referral was because of the silly tattoo and that the image of her butt was found on imgur.com ( oh my! )
Isn't there some official site rule against posting pics featuring a "silly tattoo"?
What truly puzzles me is why a person who has been deleted for posting "silly tattoo" pics would come back--again and again--and post the EXACT SAME web-derived, "silly tattoo" photos. That's insane!
Don't they understand that we don't like their kind around these parts?
Now that you are keeping a closer eye on the shenanigans that go on in the Star Chamber, there have been fewer bogus reports lately.
Nice work keeping them honest, guys and gals!
There was an interesting referral made today. I'm why not certain why the member was referred, my guess is that the member referring isn't even clear why, otherwise the report would have been more detailed. It will be interesting how the panel members will view this and cast their vote.
He'll never answer the question, though. Transparency/honesty is NOT in his Nature...
[deleted image]
With that said, what's her logic to continually post on a thread that I authored?
Also, her claim that I've posted anonymously on her wall is not true, that's not my style.
There really is a Star Chamber. That's the address right up there. It was intended as a way for voting members to help weed out profiles posting stolen pics and such, but it is frequently misused as a means to push personal agendas and petty grievances. Which is why folks should check it out from time to time.
Again, I'm not quite sure why this issue has to play out here. For a mere twenty points, you can start your own thread to hash this issue out.
If you can't spare the 20 points, let me know. I will gladly pay the points and start a thread for you. Another option would be to just go back over to the "Dafuq" thread and continue this particular gripe session there...
Aug 17, 12:02 admin: sure
Aug 17, 11:06 bella!: Thank you. May I share your thoughts with the voting panel?
Aug 17, 11:01 admin: I would delete 3 pics in question, problem solved.
Aug 17, 10:18 bella!: He's currently up for "evaluation".
Aug 17, 10:17 bella!: Hi. This is a very sincere question, this is a member for 13 months...Would you delete this member or would you give him an opportunity to rectify the problem? I want to be certain that I understand your guidelines correctly /member.php?w=466205
The voting members are not able to embrace the fact that:
ADMIN'S GUIDELINES SAY THIS; If the abuse is not grave please try to convince the member to delete the pics in question before deleting him entirely. Last phrase is meant for profiles posting internet porn as internet porn, i.e. who do not pretend to be people on those photos or friends of those people. It is NOT meant for accounts that start their life on the site posting internet porn pretending it's them.
ADMIN'S GUIDELINES SAY THIS; If it appears later that the member was deleted unjustly - all members who were in favour of the deletion will be deleted and banned from the site.
Apparently, popular opinion is that evaluation matters are all neat and clean and should be resolved in a matter of hours. If the voting members take note of admin's post, these issues can linger up to 10 days! Heaven help the member that doesn't sign on in 24 hours, they can be out of here without knowing what happened. POOF! GONE!
It just amazes me just how thick headed some members will be!
/abuse_reports.php
I'm glad that admin provided the link so that membership can actually see who the site whack-a-doodles really are!
/abuse_reports.php
I have no idea why I didn't do that...
If the abuse is not grave please try to convince the member to delete the pics in question before deleting him entirely Last phrase is meant for profiles posting internet porn as internet porn, i.e. who do not pretend to be people on those photos or friends of those people. It is NOT meant for accounts that start their life on the site posting internet porn pretending it's them.
The same members quickly vote to delete even though there is no deception involved. There was a relatively new voting member that proceeded to vote to delete without allowing the referred member and opportunity to rectify or respond....
/abuse_reports.php
You would think that that was his opportunity to state what he felt was inaccurate about my comment(s). Apparently, he has been very busy gathering and posting photos of members that he enjoys poking at and making fun of.
It is intended to encourage all members to be aware of how the deletion panel works...so that everything can be done openly and honestly.
John has ALWAYS claimed to be against secr*ts here on SYD.
Why would he object to transparency in the Star Chamber?
(It seems like SOMEONE has something to hide.)
DELETE THIS MEMBER 13,Aug 09:07 By ****
A regular fake. It slipped under the radar yesterday. The link above is to the original uncropped version stolen by the fake. Also the message left by **** has been seen and ignored by the fake.
What the voting member failed to mention was that [s]he provided incorrect links to the alleged website(s) to support their claim. So in my estimation, nothing slipped under the radar, it was obvious that someone did do their due diligence and present good information. 👈 To that reporting and voting member, just as I do, you also make mistakes. The difference between us is that you NEVER admit you're wrong.
It is also interesting to observe the referring/voting patterns of the more active panel members.
One guy consistently referred and voted to delete profiles of guys with bigger dicks than his.
Another habitually refers Asian and Indian profiles.
One guy makes insulting comments about referred members quite often.
A handful of people just cast their vote to go along with their posse leader without any thought being put into it.
It can be very entertaining...
Others, sadly, do not.
The more people who check out the link to the Star Chamber on a regular basis--even if they can't vote yet--the better chance we have of keeping things honest.
[deleted image]
--------------------------------------- added after 14 hours
Apparently the poster of the image, which is now removed, had second thoughts. My opinion of the poster and their image, by you posting a vote with the members additional comment only reflects your poor judgment as well as your inability to understand that members do not always share your opinion. And it was solely for that reason, you chastised the member and called him Old Blighty. Poor form on your part, it only makes you look foolish!
--------------------------------------- added after 15 hours
[deleted image]
Oops! The poster is being a bit slippery as he removed the image and added it again dated today.
--------------------------------------- added after 16 hours
Since the poster has changed the category of the image to "friends only" and included a comment directed at me, I will close by saying this;
JohnS GET OVER YOURSELF AND STOP *YOUR* NONSENSE!
JohnS, you and your 60 or so friends enjoy the image.
--------------------------------------- added after 17 hours
JohnS, rather than voting my comment down, why not post your thoughts. Was anything I said inaccurate or are you just being your old and miserable self?