Out of curiosity...

Frankiestylee

I've read the sticky... and it's a bit lacking on the light shedding, infact it's quiet dark... why can only the chosen few access S&S? I know this is probably a stupidly over posted topic, but perhaps if you include some more information in the sticky then posts like this would become unneccessary.
I can only see S&S as a huge part of human life and human society, people want to talk about such stuff... such a broad website as Boards restricting access to such topics seems a bit off. I don't know why it happened, one day it was open one day it's not, I'm just wondering why cause I'm mad curious now.

aidan_walsh

Keeps out the minors.

Ruu_Old

The topics don't show up in web searches and it is to keep out minors as aidan metioned. The decision was made by the owners.

Talliesin

Another factor is that it was foreseen as being a major troll-fest if it was completely open.

DublinWriter

Frankiestylee wrote:

I'm just wondering why cause I'm mad curious now.

Marketing in action! Pay your sub and find out!

Spoiler: You'll be sadly disappointed!

Frankiestylee

Yeah I remember S&S when it was free to all... wasn't very interesting back then, I doubt it'll be interesting now that it has limited access.

Guess I'll keep truckin' along now that I know the answers to my questions, though one must wonder how being a mod proves that one is over 18 etc... eg the mod of the secondary schools bits etc. I don't know if this is an accurate exaple, but I'm sure there are underage mods out there.

Someone might think about putting the various explanations into the sticky.

WhiteWashMan

Frankiestylee wrote:

Yeah I remember S&S when it was free to all... wasn't very interesting back then, I doubt it'll be interesting now that it has limited access. .

im not sure the S&S forum was every open to everyone.
in fact, i recall being in the debate about if such a forum should be created, then i was firmly on the side of it having limited access to subscribers only.

its still not interesting.

Frankiestylee wrote:

Guess I'll keep truckin' along now that I know the answers to my questions, though one must wonder how being a mod proves that one is over 18 etc... eg the mod of the secondary schools bits etc. I don't know if this is an accurate exaple, but I'm sure there are underage mods out there. .

well, i guess you will just have to trust us on that one. i wouldnt waste your time spending precious seconds thinking about it tbh. we can worry enough about it for both of us, eh?

Frankiestylee wrote:

Someone might think about putting the various explanations into the sticky.

i thought there was enough info in there, although, im unsure as to what 'explanations' you think should go in there?

Frankiestylee wrote:

I can only see S&S as a huge part of human life and human society.

and therefore the decision that we came to after many hours of debate, based on our opinions, our experiences, are worthless because you deem something wrong?
i fail to see your point here entirely.

Talliesin

Frankiestylee wrote:

Yeah I remember S&S when it was free to all... wasn't very interesting back then, I doubt it'll be interesting now that it has limited access.

I remember when S&S was open to its moderators and absolutely nobody else.

I remember the next stage, when I had manually added everyone on the moderator and subscriber groups.

I remember the following stage when membership of those groups was set to automatically give you access.

I don't remember this "free to all" period that you're talking about though. Are you confusing it with something else, or just bull****ting?

Frankiestylee wrote:

though one must wonder how being a mod proves that one is over 18 etc.

Nobody said anything about "18". It's a forum for discussion of sexuality, not porn. Comparing with television and film guidelines in force in this country would suggest an age limit of around 15 or 16.

Frankiestylee wrote:

Someone might think about putting the various explanations into the sticky.

There was more in the way of explanation and discussions but after it got full of stupid trolls talking out of their arse about the fact that they "know" it was to increase revenue I got pissed off with the little ****s and deleted it all - let the stupid twats think what they will, why bother justifying ourselves in the face of such drivel (that said, the fact that it did help revenue is the one reason I personally see for keeping it as it is, rather than my personal position that I would rather it be free for all registered users).

Frankiestylee

If I'm wrong about S&S being open to everybody then I'm either mistaken and went to a differant forum that I thougth was S&S or there was a temporary **** up with view rights etc. I'm not bull****ing, it doesn't tend to work when you try to tell the lion you remember when your head was in his mouth.

In relation to the over 18 lark, all the previous responses said it was about stopping minors from gaining access.

I've no problem really with any of the reasons to keep it restricted, it's just the sticky made me all curious as to the whys.

On another note : Talliesin - excellent reply. WhiteWashMan - there seems to be a horribly condescending rattle going around in that post, us and them and all that. I know some mods in real life... I know no gods in real life.

WhiteWashMan

Frankiestylee wrote:

WhiteWashMan - there seems to be a horribly condescending rattle going around in that post, us and them and all that. I know some mods in real life... I know no gods in real life.

if you see it that way, then thats your take on it.
the debate was open for all to have as far as i recall, and the decision was the administration, not the moderators.

i have no idea what mods or gods have to do with anything. although, you havent yet met me.

Talliesin

Frankiestylee wrote:

In relation to the over 18 lark, all the previous responses said it was about stopping minors from gaining access.

One thing that I think many people who have commented or enquired about this topic in the past, from a variety of different opinions and with a variety different attitudes (honestly enquiring, agressive, suspicious, trolling, condescending and honest), may not grasp is that this decision did not come down to any one individual (though DeVore was the one that gave the final okay) but through a series of discussions between different people (of which I am one) that in turn were made in light of comments that had been made prior to it by many posters on boards (who may not even realise that their opinions were indeed listened to).

Most of us were pretty much against 8 year olds reading what would be written there (but then again most of us are pretty much against 8 year olds reading what is in PI and elsewhere on ocassion where we currently depend upon 8 year olds having parents that pay an appropriate amount of attention to what their children are doing online). Some of us wanted a hard 18-year-old limit with checks done to ensure that people were indeed 18. Some of us wanted there to be no S&S forum - of which one of the most common objections was the fears that it would be a complete trollfest. I personally wanted it to be given a chance completely open to all registered posters and indeed could see a good case for allowing pre-moderated anonymous posts such as are currently allowed in PI, LGB, Gifts & Parties and athletics (I can't remember why atheletics does or did also allow anonymous posts, just that it at least once did).

Out of this whole range of ideas which ranged from setting it up with complete access for all through to not having it at all and a general concensus that you'd have to be a complete fool to moderate it came a certain breakthrough - I volunteered to be that complete fool! (Possibly people were right that it would indeed have been hell to moderated had it been completely open but I figured it would be worth a giving it a chance).

After this DeVore decided to give it a go with the limitations that are on it as a way to attempt to help address with all of the concerns that were raised. He asked me if I wanted to moderate it under such rules. I said okay, also okayed it with someone who had previously also said she would be willing to moderate it and asked a third person if she would join in the moderation also* and then we went ahead and started it.

As such, all of the reasons you will read given for the rules are part of the true answer, but no single one of them is the one absolutely, completely true reason.

That we had a peak in subscriber numbers after this was unexpected and slightly freaky to at least some of us involved in this decision. People like DublinWriter who talk about knowing that this was a big money-grabbing exercise on the part of the site are talking out of their ass. As a rule they are always people like DublinWriter who are always talking out of their ass, but it can lead to a bad impression to new users should we not bother to correct their whining from time to time.

Still, it was damn well welcome to have that increase in funds, especially as it coincided with a technical problem that cost the site money. Everything you enjoy on this site is paid for by the money the site earns and if it had been a money-making scheme on the site's part it would have been a perfectly legitimate one that the site had every right to make. It's certainly a perfectly good reason to keep some sections subscriber-only IMO though on balance the only reason I would personally object to S&S being made completely open is that some people may have said things they were happy enough posting things to be read by the relatively small crowd and would not be happy with it being read by more (I would always advise people to assume that everyone can find the stuff you post there somehow, but that's another matter).

Hence, the real reason for the rules are not a single attempt to prevent a particular bad outcome or enable a particular good outcome. They are a compromise between a whole bunch of opinions. Most of the reasons you'll hear are part of the answer, some are just people bull****ting, and none are the complete answer.

*This third moderator I later asked to marry me, so this was the beginning of my suggesting things to her that she would say "yes" to that has so far turned out pretty nicely to my point of view.

Boston

I've met WWM, he is a god.

Edit; Beyond all the other reasons I think the fact that it can't be referenced by google is the most pressing one. The way the internet works is changing. Google collects a lot of information and what you say on a little old forum like boards is being accessed by more and more people.

RuggieBear

a small god

Talliesin

Boston wrote:

Beyond all the other reasons I think the fact that it can't be referenced by google is the most pressing one.

A good point, though restricting it to logged in users would have also done that.

oleras

Talliesin wrote:

One thing that I think many people who have commented or enquired about this topic in the past, from a variety of different opinions and with a variety different attitudes (honestly enquiring, agressive, suspicious, trolling, condescending and honest), may not grasp is that this decision did not come down to any one individual (though DeVore was the one that gave the final okay) but through a series of discussions between different people (of which I am one) that in turn were made in light of comments that had been made prior to it by many posters on boards (who may not even realise that their opinions were indeed listened to).

Most of us were pretty much against 8 year olds reading what would be written there (but then again most of us are pretty much against 8 year olds reading what is in PI and elsewhere on ocassion where we currently depend upon 8 year olds having parents that pay an appropriate amount of attention to what their children are doing online). Some of us wanted a hard 18-year-old limit with checks done to ensure that people were indeed 18. Some of us wanted there to be no S&S forum - of which one of the most common objections was the fears that it would be a complete trollfest. I personally wanted it to be given a chance completely open to all registered posters and indeed could see a good case for allowing pre-moderated anonymous posts such as are currently allowed in PI, LGB, Gifts & Parties and athletics (I can't remember why atheletics does or did also allow anonymous posts, just that it at least once did).

Out of this whole range of ideas which ranged from setting it up with complete access for all through to not having it at all and a general concensus that you'd have to be a complete fool to moderate it came a certain breakthrough - I volunteered to be that complete fool! (Possibly people were right that it would indeed have been hell to moderated had it been completely open but I figured it would be worth a giving it a chance).

After this DeVore decided to give it a go with the limitations that are on it as a way to attempt to help address with all of the concerns that were raised. He asked me if I wanted to moderate it under such rules. I said okay, also okayed it with someone who had previously also said she would be willing to moderate it and asked a third person if she would join in the moderation also* and then we went ahead and started it.

As such, all of the reasons you will read given for the rules are part of the true answer, but no single one of them is the one absolutely, completely true reason.

That we had a peak in subscriber numbers after this was unexpected and slightly freaky to at least some of us involved in this decision. People like DublinWriter who talk about knowing that this was a big money-grabbing exercise on the part of the site are talking out of their ass. As a rule they are always people like DublinWriter who are always talking out of their ass, but it can lead to a bad impression to new users should we not bother to correct their whining from time to time.

Still, it was damn well welcome to have that increase in funds, especially as it coincided with a technical problem that cost the site money. Everything you enjoy on this site is paid for by the money the site earns and if it had been a money-making scheme on the site's part it would have been a perfectly legitimate one that the site had every right to make. It's certainly a perfectly good reason to keep some sections subscriber-only IMO though on balance the only reason I would personally object to S&S being made completely open is that some people may have said things they were happy enough posting things to be read by the relatively small crowd and would not be happy with it being read by more (I would always advise people to assume that everyone can find the stuff you post there somehow, but that's another matter).

Hence, the real reason for the rules are not a single attempt to prevent a particular bad outcome or enable a particular good outcome. They are a compromise between a whole bunch of opinions. Most of the reasons you'll hear are part of the answer, some are just people bull****ting, and none are the complete answer.

*This third moderator I later asked to marry me, so this was the beginning of my suggesting things to her that she would say "yes" to that has so far turned out pretty nicely to my point of view.

*rubs eyes, and reminds oneself to blink more often*....... i want in !! .....i want to be part of the small crowd, doesnt like large crowds !

Frankiestylee

That was a nice comprehensive reply.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of people who complain about websites like boards making money, it's not as if it's a charity etc. and such a big thing has overheads. It's a bit like people believing they have the right to access illegal content online as if being able to access the internet confers some sort of awesome right on a person.

Small Gods eh? Great lil book that.

Talliesin

Frankiestylee wrote:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of people who complain about websites like boards making money, it's not as if it's a charity etc.

I don't so much object to that - everyone is entitled to their opinion as to how this site is run, though only the admins are entitled to have their opinion acted on since they own the site and the rest of us don't - I do object to people insisting that those of us who know what the story is are lying because what we say, which is based on actually having knowledge of what happened, differs with their opinion, which is based on their whiney tendency to assume that people are out to shaft them or otherwise basically dishonest.

If it had been done for the money we would have said so. There's plenty of things that are done for the money - whether of boards itself or the Santa Strike Force and possibly other future charitable endeavours - and there's no pretence otherwise.

Historically the admins have tended to reject money-making ideas unless they were shown to have pretty much zero negative impact on what people are already getting for free.

WizZard

Talliesin wrote:

A good point, though restricting it to logged in users would have also done that.

I don't want to stick my oar in but there are crawlers registering on vB/phpBB sites as users, who index threads e.g. BoardTracker
Not that there is anything wrong with doing that

So having forums readable when logged in only does not mean that they are ignored by search engines, especially those that specialise in indexing forums.