LPSG Members: become part of the solution.

Yes, vBulletin does have a "reputation" thing... I joined a messageboard that runs vBulletin called "Black Sheep Forums" and they have the reputation system.

I agree, I would also love to be a mod here, seeing as the last forum I was at was revamped, and mods are not needed anymore.

Curious some folks are proposing such a plethora of rules, which would make the problem of over controlling by moderators worse, not relieve it.

I do not agree with the suggestion of banning someone for posting pics that are not their own. Fewer reasons for banning, not more. Outing by members would be sufficient. Waste of moderator time and effort.

A member who has just contributed by posting in the threads or pics, and not monetarily should be treated with respect by the moderators, not insulted and accused of freeloading. This is extremely offensive.

Some things that people who have not have not read the recent thread 'Is LPSG worth $60' might not be aware of(from my recollection). The largest number of visitors to the site are looking only at the pics, and never post, or even view the threads. Still, the number of people who read threads is @10x the number of posters.
So, my take, from the owner's business perspective, people paying to look at the pics is probably of relatively of more importance than the forums, which are of more importance to the community.

It's much worse from a woman's point of view Kalipygian, we can have a hard enough time on any website without having to use it in the atmosphere of distrust that's created by all the stolen pics that are posted by 'women' claiming them to be their own.

Wasn't suggesting that they should be left alone, would not being outed and laughed at by members embarrass them and accomplish the same thing?
Perhaps the pics could be removed, and a notice put in their place.

Perhaps someone who has posted stolen pics might not be allowed a gallery of their own.

I have no personal experience with the chatroom or arcade here, except for reading what people post in the forum about problems there.

For me, I noticed someone on myspace had one of my pics posted in his gallery. I sent him a message thanking him for the compliment, he took it down. I thought it was funny, I was flattered, I didn't care, but certainly for people in other circumstances, it could matter very much. I have encourage some people here to put a watermark in the middle of their pics.

We do that Kalipygian, it still doesn't stop them coming in the chat room for instance and suckering some poor guy into believing they're genuine, then when he finds out he's all disenchanted with women on the net.

I think that not only should stolen pix be ban-able, but provable fakes (Photoshopped) that are attempted to be passed off as real should be also. The public censuring does NOT work. We do that now, and it has very limited success. Once in a while people will pull the offending pix, but there are still tons of "duplicate" images in the galleries, as well as pix that can been seen by the naked eye to have used the Photoshop "clone" tool to elongate, or otherwise enhance the image.

Too much, nov.
Of course, many are suggesting a series of warnings leading up to a ban.
Perhaps that would work.
And those few that would ultimately be banned would be hoist by their own retard.

I also think it'd be nice if the mods posted pics and joined in the naked fun :-) They'd be leading by example.

Yes, it would have to go through the same process, but I still think that it should be a basis for warning, and the process to start. If you had pix posted, and found them elsewhere being used by someone else, TRUST ME, you'd want at least a banning. It's identity theft!

I know for a fact wingnut84 had at least 2 warnings in the last month before being banned tonight.

The problem comes in when it's not clear which is the victim and which the thief.
But sometimes that's quite obvious.
Often.

Bannings are case-by-case anyway, so it would have to be figured out in the process who was who, but as you admitted, sometimes it's quite obvious, and I would actually go farther and say that MOST times it's quickly provable.

I am going through reading these as well. And wanted to make a comment on the underage. I am not the brightest light bulb when it comes to being able to "google" different kinds of things on the Internet. I do know that it might be inappropriate to have a list of all banned underaged as those who know how can take that list and make it much easier to identify and contact those underage particularly if they left an e-mail address laying around.

As far as just putting banned underage on the avatar, I don't know if that would put them at greater risk or not. I would have to find out from Internet experts in identifying people. I haven't read the rest of these and someone may have already suggested this, but I am in favor of being able to put Suspended, Temporary Ban and/or Banned on the avatar. Suspended would just mean that posting privledges are suspended because there is something the mods are investigating and feel it is urgent enough to stop the poster from posting until the investigation is complete. Temporary Ban is self explanatory. I don't think there is a way to put how long the ban is on the avatar though. Maybe that could be put in the profile somewhere - one day, one week etc. If the reaason for the ban is going to be made public, I would think somewhere in the profile would be the best place.