for the late night troll possy

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

im not asking for ****, if you think that then you should probobly re-read my posts. im just saying that is it sad that "skimpy swimwear" is banable. i understand the server bill crap and all that. but IMO there is no need to be THIS strict about stupid stuff like that. i dont want Vag pics on here, i have kids. i respect pple that want a clean environment. thats why i think there should be an 18+ section. a section that has more relaxed rules, but is still moderated properly.
obviously the community agrees with me, im sure something can be done. it probobly wont be done, but it CAN be.

Matt

I take issue with a few things you've said here.
One, you dont know that 'the community agrees with you', you are simply guessing. Yes, I see people complain about the not-so-new-anymore rule on pics, but Ive also had many people PM me saying they are glad we mods are cleaning this site up. I think I have my finger on the pulse of this community better than you do, and even I wouldn't claim I know what the community in general wants. So please, stop pretending like you know. Thanks.

Second, since you are an expert on what CAN be done versus what ISN'T being done, feel free to post google-ad's rules, specifically, on what does or does not constitute partial ******, what it allows, what it does not, etc. Since you know what CAN be done, you obviously klnow this information. So, do tell.

Google-ads created the rule on no porn. That's the only reason, that Im aware, that the rule exists here. As for why so strict on it, again you dont know google-ad's rules, so you are just assuming we are being more strict than we are being told we must be by google. And even if Goob has chosen a 'no tolerance' policy towards showing skin in pics that is above and beyond google's conditions, seeing as its the very existence of this site that is at stake, I dont blame him a bit for choosing to error on the side of caution. Time and again various people on this site have shown a propensity to push the rules, or simply break them, much like a child testing a parent to see how much he can get away with. So if we said skimpy clothing was allowed, it would be no time flat before someone is posting a woman in wet-so-you-can-see-through-it underwear, claim its not against the rule because she is clothed, and scream bloody murder when we remove the pic.

Most of the members here understand these hard choices the site owner, and his moderators, must make. But there are a few members who only chose to look at the situation from one perspective, their own, and it pisses them off that they dont get to make the rules even though they have nothing more than a screen name at stake.

lastly, I might take these arguments a bit more seriously if you couldn't go to half the rest of the internet and find nude pics. But you can. So I dont.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

im not asking for ******. i have said that more than enough times. i just think there should be a section with more relaxed rules. i mean a bikini pic violates the TOS? cmon....
Matt

This is the section with relaxed rules. They just aren't relaxed enough for your personal desire, so you make a stink about it instead of trying to understand why the situation is the way it is. If you think Goob, or any mod here, simply has some personal goal to keep you guys from seeing *****, you would be mistaken.

I appreciate your input, as I would any other member here, but the reasoning behind the rule has been explained plenty of times now, when we could have simply said 'this is the rule, deal with it or leave' and not bothered trying to explain to the community why it is what it is. The rule was made for legit reasons, its as strict as it is for legit reasons, and we have done our best to explain the reasoning behind it when we weren't required to explain it at all. If that isn't enough for you to accept, then at some point you need to start realizing the issue is on your end, not our's.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

seriously, post a pic of a chick in lingerie and I get an infraction. There's a victoria's secret in every mall where kids go, wtf?

So you are mad you got an infraction for breaking a rule that you knew about, but chose to ignore. Duly noted.

This is the sort of mentality that escapes me, like somehow you are going to wake us up to the possible hypocrisies in a tough decision that had to be made. Duh, we know. Just like Goob, I and Im sure the rest of the mods know that many places in Europe allow partial frontal ****** on television... I guess a member from England has a right to ignore the rule even further?

Same reply as to the previous guy, try understanding the situation that Goob and the site are in instead of over simplifying this because you think you should be able to look at boobies on a car audio forum's off-topic section. If the lack of nude pics is so awful for some of you guys, why aren't you over at the Honda forum, the Rockford Fosgate forum, or the Chevy forums, looking at nude pics? Oh that's right, because many of those forums dont allow ****** either, for the very same reasons.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

So she is banned then? I do know the rules, but I do not know what mods consider partial ****** (as it says no skimpy bathing suits).

You can see more at the local Shopping mall than she provided.

wow.... so a chick posts a bathing suit top and gets banned. CA.com i think you may have started the divorce papers.....
and to all the guys that care, the misses says "i might let you do that, but if im doing it its going to be no bathing suit. speakers will cover the naughty bits" so yall might be in luck.

Matt

Ive lost track of if you guys are mad because we censor too much, or mad because we have not censored this thread enough. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Nobody is banned, nothing here has been censored, yet some of you claim both of these things happened, and then bitch about it. Come back when you've decided which side of this issue you are going to argue from.

 

[nateberrier 10+ year member]

Ive lost track of if you guys are mad because we censor too much, or mad because we have not censored this thread enough. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
Nobody is banned, nothing here has been censored, yet some of you claim both of these things happened, and then bitch about it. Come back when you've decided which side of this issue you are going to argue from.

We should form political parties and have CA.com debates over ****** policy. It will go nowhere and we can all be mad at each other and spread rumors that things are happening.

 

[dumple 5,000+ posts]

Hot pockets are so good but why must they make the middle hot lava

 

[Imtjnotu 5,000+ posts]

Hot pockets are so good but why must they make the middle hot lava

lulz so true so true

 

[dumple 5,000+ posts]

lulz so true so true

I just wanna eat my ham and cheese but it's so hot :-(

 

[Imtjnotu 5,000+ posts]

I just wanna eat my ham and cheese but it's so hot :-(

i use to cut holes in it and let it cool for like 15 minutes

 

[mat3833 10+ year member]

This is the section with relaxed rules. They just aren't relaxed enough for your personal desire, so you make a stink about it instead of trying to understand why the situation is the way it is. If you think Goob, or any mod here, simply has some personal goal to keep you guys from seeing *****, you would be mistaken.
I appreciate your input, as I would any other member here, but the reasoning behind the rule has been explained plenty of times now, when we could have simply said 'this is the rule, deal with it or leave' and not bothered trying to explain to the community why it is what it is. The rule was made for legit reasons, its as strict as it is for legit reasons, and we have done our best to explain the reasoning behind it when we weren't required to explain it at all. If that isn't enough for you to accept, then at some point you need to start realizing the issue is on your end, not our's.

the ironic thing is i DO know googles rules. i used to moderate a forum about old volkswagens that was also paid for by google ads, but im not going to **** in the wind because afterall i am not a mod, and quite frankly i prefer to be able to post in these forums.

it seems you cannot grasp the actual content of my words. you just take what i say and assume. and my personal taste has nothing to do with it, i only had a problem because i was under the impression cat got banned for that picture, when the pictures she has posted are not in violation of Googles TOS, which is aparently how the rules are interpreted here.

Matt