is banning right or wrong?

[gjmwbimale48]

as the former owner/moderator of a similar, albeit much smaller forum, i'm interested to know how many of the rest of you find a moderator's banning of a member because of what they consider to be inappropriate behavior acceptable?

let's not debate the freedom of "speech" issue here, please?

but rather as a user member of this forum, do you want some form of decorum enforcement, or should we "let the wild dogs run"?

I for one, consider moderation and the possibility of banning a disruptive member as a necessity for the preservation of what i'm sure is meant to be a friendly and empowering environment.

Certainly we as adults can find ways to discuss, debate, and even disagree without resorting to name calling and making inflammatory remarks.

I applaud Drew's decisions!

Just my two cents worth of course....

now its your turn?

[Tommy2020]

Do you think Drew was wrong to ban Daisy999? Have you noticed that she (?) is back under the name of 'Resurrection'?
Unfortunately (and I am just as guilty as the next guilty party) very few souls can avoid the challenge of a 'troll'.
IMHO
I just feel that someone, anyone, that cannot simply post interesting content without shifting to 'troll mode' and becoming beligerent needs to go the his/her 'quiet corner' for awhile and chill. If they can't/won't take stock of themselves and do it voluntarily, then.... what choice is there in order to maintain a little sanity and get the postings back into a respectful order?
Like you and I. I do not agree with you. So what? If you let it ruin your day, then who's problem is it? Mine or yours? Do I need to continue to berate you in this or any other forum, and follow you around, keep on disagreeing with you, and then start calling you a stupid bastard for your differing opinion? Where do you draw the line?
I agree with Drew. He did the right thing and have you noticed... Daisy (turned Resurrection) has trimmed her postings and has actually become a little more interesting. So it works.
Have a great day
Tommy2020

[Herbwoman39]

Disruptive influences can cause a great deal of chaos in small forums such as this one. When said influence causes widespread issues, then it is time for that influence to be pruned from the garden, to borrow a metaphor.

Drew did the right thing.

[Tommy2020]

QUOTE (out of context)......think moderation and the possibility of banning a disruptive member as a necessity for the preservation... QUOTE (out of context)

'as' a necessity or IS a necessity for........

Thanks,
Tommy2020

[yoyo4u]

I imagine if I picked my nose, spat on the floor, or shouted obscenities in the hall of a Hilton Hotel, I'd not last long. They'd throw me out.

Do I have the right to do all those things?
Yes!

Do they have the right to throw me out of private property, because I don't want to accept their rules and expectations?
Yes!

Lastly, I don't want to pay big bucks to listen to some of the unruly.
I could do that free at a swap meet, for example.

What do you think? :cool:

[Moto1]

Just to bring another thing to this discussion, what about banning those who are under-age from these sites? On a different site I used to be part of there was a bit of an incident when someone 16 I believe was found out as such, and was banned because it was an 18+ site. Although I recognise why the 18+ rule is in place, does anyone feel that sometimes these young adults should be allowed to stay?

[arana]

Lastly, I don't want to pay big bucks to listen to some of the unruly.
I could do that free at a swap meet, for example.

What do you think? :cool:
You pay???

[arana]

Just to bring another thing to this discussion, what about banning those who are under-age from these sites? On a different site I used to be part of there was a bit of an incident when someone 16 I believe was found out as such, and was banned because it was an 18+ site. Although I recognise why the 18+ rule is in place, does anyone feel that sometimes these young adults should be allowed to stay?
Unfortunately this is more a legal issue then a should they or shouldn't they debate. The site could be closed if minors were allowed to be here and be a part of some of the things that go on here.

Individuals, young and old, mature at different levels so it's not so cut and dry to say this person stays and this person goes because of age...except when certain circumstances such as legal regulations come into play. Then you have to go by the rules or everyone loses out.

[TorontoGuy2007]

this site has 4 "posting rules" that we can all read every time we go to make a post. if someone breaks one of these rules, or even comes close to the point where the moderator makes a judgement call that one of the rules has been broken, then i certainly agree with banning the offender.

posting on this site is not a right, it is a privlidge. freedom of speech may be suitable in the comfort of your own living room, but in a private forum such as this one, the rules must be respected. if you don't like the rules, then don't participate in the forum.. it's that simple. that is my take on things..

[canuckotter]

I can say from personal experience that well-timed bannings can help clean up a lot of crap from forums without in any way interfering with a free, social, laissez-faire atmosphere. As long as you're fair and reasonable, it actually helps make discussions freer and more open.

[ambi53mm]

this site has 4 "posting rules" that we can all read every time we go to make a post. if someone breaks one of these rules, or even comes close to the point where the moderator makes a judgement call that one of the rules has been broken, then i certainly agree with banning the offender.
posting on this site is not a right, it is a privlidge. freedom of speech may be suitable in the comfort of your own living room, but in a private forum such as this one, the rules must be respected. if you don't like the rules, then don't participate in the forum.. it's that simple. that is my take on things..


I agree with TorontoGuy2007. Drew chose to create a very simple and liberal set of rules with regard to posting on this forum.I know of no other site that offers as much in the way being able to express openly and freely the subject matter that this site allows. The rules are as follows:

Posting Rules:
Generally I am not a "rules person", but experience with various internet communities has taught me that rules are necessary, even on a site that is all about about sexual freedom such as Bisexual.com. So here they are:
1. Don't post your personal ad here. They just clutter up the forums. By far the best thing to do if you are looking to meet people is create a quality personal ad under your "My Account" control panel. These ads then show up highlighted to people in your area.
2. Be polite - flame the idea if you feel you must, but not the person.
3. Sexual freedom is what it's all about, but even it should have limits - discussions of non-consensual sex, violence and sex, or sex involving children are not welcome here, will be promptly deleted, and the poster may be banned.
4. Have fun. Learn. Share. Entertain. Discuss. Argue. Enlighten.
- Drew

The choice seems pretty simple to me...if you find these rules unacceptable, then find somewhere else to post.

Ambi :)

[SweetBlackAngel]

I've been on boards where a lot of nonsense seems to go unchecked. It really affects the vibe of the place. It's nice to know that someone is looking out and paying attention (or, at least, taking care of business when something is brought to their attention).

I don't know if it's a matter of whether banning is right or wrong. I think it may depend on how the banning is done and who the community is. And there's nothing wrong with having rules of conduct. That way, folks know what is expected of them.

[Solomon]

is banning right or wrong? i'd hafta say neither.

it's really not either, it's simply a consequence that makes a statement.

[yoyo4u]

You pay???
When I go to the Hilton yes, and I suspect you too, just as gladly as I am :)

Perhaps there is good idea here. Lets start a paysite, where people can blurt out whatever they want.
What do you think? :tongue:

This just in.....

Sir!
Please note, that swap meets are privately owned and you have to pay $0.50 to get in. You don't do and say those "things" - out of respect for others - just because you can!

I stand corrected........ :cool:

[pasco_lol_cpl]

As a moderator at a very large board, I have to agree with both TorontoGuy and Ambi. The rules are there for a reason. They are very reasonable and easy to comply with. If a poster / member shows no desire to adhere to those rules, and who's main point in posting is to troll, then I say a banning is perfectly justified.

[CountryLover]

I was a member of, and then helped run a VERY large bi married forum on the internet a few years ago. We had over 100 live operators, and the chat room was open and active 24/7. We had something over 1500 visitors per week, and 100's of regulars.

I discouraged banning, but we did have a few rules "set in concrete". No one under 18, no bi/gay bashing, no racial slurs, and no bestiality/necromancy (you know, the realllllly over the top stuff). If someone had a grievance, they were encouraged to take it private or bring it to me for handling. If they persisted in disrupting the tone of the group (for example, a preacher type who came in spouting what sinners we all were during a counseling session with a person in confusion or pain), they'd be bounced and temporarily banned and 'counseled' outside the group setting.

Any time you get a big group of people together, especially with the anonymity of the internet hiding them...you're going to have some who will test the limits of common courtesy and good taste. Banning simply reinforces those limits.

[ghytifrdnr]

I think that banning is necessary sometimes. In this instance, Drew acted correctly.
But I'd like to point out that there is another way to deal with disruptive people, and that is shunning. When someone gets out of line with their postings we should resist the temptation to flame back at them and rather refuse to communicate with them in that forum or any others. When the troll stops getting a rise out of anyone, they'll likely go away. :2cents:

[biwords]

Shunning is very good, but it requires serious discipline...once one person breaks ranks and speaks to the shunned, others chime in....it's like what they say about dropping the first piece of litter...

[ghytifrdnr]

Shunning is very good, but it requires serious discipline...once one person breaks ranks and speaks to the shunned, others chime in....it's like what they say about dropping the first piece of litter...

Granted! But then we're all well disciplined adults here, aren't we? :rolleyes:

[TaylorMade]

Granted! But then we're all well disciplined adults here, aren't we? :rolleyes:

Not always. . .so, that brings us to our problem. . .what do you do with a person who lacks the discipline to act like a mature adult?

*Taylor*

[Solomon]

shunning people.... isn't that the same as banning?

[biwords]

No, I would say that shunning is a kind of boycott, and boycotts and bans are quite different. (The same difference as between a central authority prohibiting the sale of a product, and consumers simply deciding not to buy it).

[cchalmer]

My g/f and I have been on this site for quite awhile....we have made some very good friends. We have had some laughs.....shared others pain....shared our pain with others........in short this place has become a real community for us although we have been absent pretty much for awhile getting our lives in order. In all that time there have been very few people that have been banned from this site. Drew is a very liberal and fair moderator and certainly doesn't make the decision lightly to ban somebody. And for that I feel he deserves more praise then he gets. Hats off to you Drew....not sure if I would have the patience that you do.

As for it being right or wrong??? Sometimes "harsh" penalties are necessary. Some people just don't take the hint. I posted on Daisy's forum early on and then sat back and watched. I refused to post anymore on there because despite several "suggestions" from the fine people on this site she just couldn't get it through that dense blob that in most people is called a brain that she had crossed the line. And as far as I was concerned she had crossed the line in the first post she made. After that.....well it was just downhill from there.

Now after all that........lol. I would much rather see the odd person banned from here and keep it the wonderful warm and even educational place that we have all come to know and love then have it wrecked by a few "disruptive" influences. If Daisy has indeed come back as someone else so be it. If she is willing to now play by the rules then she is more than welcome. If she doesn't.......well it won't be long before she's given the boot again.

[bi-robin-calif]

Lets start a paysite, where people can blurt out whatever they want.

I think there's already one similar to that. It's called the United States Congress. If you're rich enough, they listen to you, and even let you write the laws for them.

[bi-robin-calif]

I would much rather see the odd person banned from here

Sweetie, if you banned all of the odd people from here, there wouldn't be anyone left! ;)

[cchalmer]

Sweetie, if you banned all of the odd people from here, there wouldn't be anyone left! ;)


LOL.....okay maybe I could phrase that better. Screwballs???? :bigrin:

[bi-robin-calif]

Nope, that doesn't do it, either!

How about simply "bigots and haters"?

[jedinudist]

as the former owner/moderator of a similar, albeit much smaller forum, i'm interested to know how many of the rest of you find a moderator's banning of a member because of what they consider to be inappropriate behavior acceptable?

let's not debate the freedom of "speech" issue here, please?

but rather as a user member of this forum, do you want some form of decorum enforcement, or should we "let the wild dogs run"?

I for one, consider moderation and the possibility of banning a disruptive member as a necessity for the preservation of what i'm sure is meant to be a friendly and empowering environment.

Certainly we as adults can find ways to discuss, debate, and even disagree without resorting to name calling and making inflammatory remarks.

I applaud Drew's decisions!

Just my two cents worth of course....

now its your turn?

I own and/or moderate several forums, and agree with Drew's decision 100%.

There are simply people out there who can not engage in intelligent debate or conversation without resorting to flames and accusations. If it only happens once in a blue moon (for example regarding an issue that is particularly difficult for a person to address) that's one thing. They simply need a quiet warning to tone it down. However, if it is an ongoing issue then banning is completely appropriate once all other avenues such as warnings and account suspensions are exhausted.

Just my little 2 cents :D

[darkeyes]

I own and/or moderate several forums, and agree with Drew's decision 100%.

There are simply people out there who can not engage in intelligent debate or conversation without resorting to flames and accusations. If it only happens once in a blue moon (for example regarding an issue that is particularly difficult for a person to address) that's one thing. They simply need a quiet warning to tone it down. However, if it is an ongoing issue then banning is completely appropriate once all other avenues such as warnings and account suspensions are exhausted.

Just my little 2 cents :D
And it has solved what????

[onewhocares]

Well, in my estimation, there is a substantial difference between commenting on lifes issues, but to come out and intentionally hurt someones feelings. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but to have to listen to belligerent insults is more than one should take. I have to agree with many of the comments posted.

Every site needs rules and regulations, as well as an insightful moderator.

Belle

[Long Duck Dong]

mmm having modded one of the largest forums around ( 120,000 + members ) I found that there will always be the ones that go against the grain....

I had the rule of thumb that I ignored them if their posts and comments were constructive or informative, no matter how much I disagreed... and I would ban them if their posts and actions were disruptive, destructive, or generally out right trolling.....

no matter what my actions, I always had critics....one of the more interesting times, was when I banned 27 people in one go.... a temp 2 day ban..... the offense ?? 27 adults verbally abusing a mentally impaired male.....the language was shocking, the abuse totally uncalled for....the site admin recieved over 1000 complaints about my actions, * how dare I ban 27 people for verbal abuse and flaming, when I should have banned the ** retard**...*

some people just don't get it...... the person was not making them type their unneeded posts and opinions, the person was not affecting their ability to act in a mature manner .... the person was simply posting in a forum, and ran into the forums main group of shit heads....
the end result was the mentally impaired person was given a 7 year ban for disrupting the forum, by admin...for the simple reason that every time he posted, the forums shit heads attacked him, so it was classed as him disrupting the forum

so in the same manner, we need to look at a banning in the forum here.... and isolate the problem... and face the fact that 90% of the time, the issue is not with the person that posts something, but the people that react to it....

however, it is drews forum and I don't know all the facts surrounding recent bannings, so I am not gonna comment either way, except to acknowledge that drew acted in the best interests of the forum and the forum members, and thats something we can all appreciate

[12voltman59]

Just to bring another thing to this discussion, what about banning those who are under-age from these sites? On a different site I used to be part of there was a bit of an incident when someone 16 I believe was found out as such, and was banned because it was an 18+ site. Although I recognise why the 18+ rule is in place, does anyone feel that sometimes these young adults should be allowed to stay?


Moto--I am afraid that the topic of children and things sexual is such a hot button issue here in the US---that it is simply not possible to allow anyone under age 18 to use this site--I do believe that this site originates in Canada, but that would not stop some ambitious county prosecutor/district attorney (as they are generally known in most US states)--that such an official would take it upon him or herself to at least push to get a site such as this shut down--and if one prosecuting attorney in one county started such a movement---he or she would likely be joined by other local prosecutors, state attornies general up to the US Attorney General---allowing underage users of this site to remain once discovered is simply something Drew and his partners cannot allow to continue--it could threaten this site--and for users here in the US who merely spoke with an underage person on this site about anything remotely sexual in nature could face possible prosecution on some trumped up charge- and even if the prosecution of such a case probably would not have a chance of success---it could destroy a person's life anyway, and for an ambitious prosecutor-- that not a problem for him or her--such a case would show their determination to go after sexual predators and such and get some good press coverage for being so dilligent going after those perverted bisexual folks--and would only play into the larger "cultural wars" thing going on here in the good old US of A!!!!

Such a case could provide fodder for those who want tighter control of the internet because of "the threat the internet poses to our precious children"-but of course--that is really a red herring because the ultimate goal is to get control of the net and make it safe not for kids but commerce by the big money interests....that is what this whole "net neutrality" issue is all about....

As far as censoring someone is concerned---this site---like many others does have guidelines that one is expected to adhere too---I have no problem with a good old fashioned heated discussion about any topic--as long as one sticks to simply discussing the subject at hand and does not get personal--the problem with the individual in question in this case- she did get personal at times and worse in my mind--she would wave away with the swipe of a hand, whole classes of people based on very narrow and superficial criteria---I have no need for such a person who does such a thing--and she did seem to want to persist in making such comments---I say good riddiance she is gone and if she has come back under a new name and continues making the same sorts of comments in the same fashion--then keep on booting her till she gets she is not welcome here--I doubt she would be welcome most anyplace--time spent chatting or whatever on here is discretionary time--I don't have to be here and could find many other places to chat on the internet or not even be on the internet at all for that matter--I come here for fun---not to be dissed and dismissed as unworthy by some --dare I say --a nasty bitch---just because I may carry too much weight on my bones!!!!

Allowing a disruptive person like the one in question could help to unravel this place--I sure as heck don't want to see that---

the post above mine is right--the real problem with such initial posts is the reaction they cause--not the initial posts in and of themselves---

[sammie19]

Moto--I am afraid that the topic of children and things sexual is such a hot button issue here in the US---that it is simply not possible to allow anyone under age 18 to use this site--I do believe that this site originates in Canada, but that would not stop some ambitious county prosecutor/district attorney (as they are generally known in most US states)--that such an official would take it upon him or herself to at least push to get a site such as this shut down--and if one prosecuting attorney in one county started such a movement---he or she would likely be joined by other local prosecutors, state attornies general up to the US Attorney General---allowing underage users of this site to remain once discovered is simply something Drew and his partners cannot allow to continue--it could threaten this site--and for users here in the US who merely spoke with an underage person on this site about anything remotely sexual in nature could face possible prosecution on some trumped up charge- and even if the prosecution of such a case probably would not have a chance of success---it could destroy a person's life anyway, and for an ambitious prosecutor-- that not a problem for him or her--such a case would show their determination to go after sexual predators and such and get some good press coverage for being so dilligent going after those perverted bisexual folks--and would only play into the larger "cultural wars" thing going on here in the good old US of A!!!!

Such a case could provide fodder for those who want tighter control of the internet because of "the threat the internet poses to our precious children"-but of course--that is really a red herring because the ultimate goal is to get control of the net and make it safe not for kids but commerce by the big money interests....that is what this whole "net neutrality" issue is all about....


As a young person not that long out of her teens, and one who was brought up in a rural and somewhat hypocritical and on the face of it at least, sexually uptight part of the world, I have always found the lack of avenues for young gay and bisexual people on the web. Its bad enough in the world we have to live in, but the one avenue which does exist and can be of great help should be the net.

That most of western Europe has an age of consent of 16, whereas the US is 18 or I think even 21 in same states, causes great inequalities and harm to young gays and bisexuals. The all pervading arm of US law really does extend where it should not it appears, and for it to be able to close down sites from outside the US who act legally within the law of its country of origin I find an affront to the integrity and independence of those countries which happen to have law which happens to differ from that of the United States. Why and how this should be the case I am not legally aware enough to know, but I do find it insulting and overbearing, especially as I am sure the US would take the most awful paddy if it occurred the other way around.

One thing does puzzle me, and this is probably because I am a legal innocent. I used to chat on another site which specifically has a gay teen facility. Also in its more ordinary Teen chat page at least one room was always opened for lesbian and bi teens. It wasnt a membership based site but I wouldnt think that should make any differnce except for the fact that it must be more difficult to prevent the art of grooming, and is not a support site, but merely a facility for youngsters to chat and do what the young like to do.

My puzzlement is this - how does this site operate within the perameters of US and international law and remain open? It is a much more dangerous site than this will ever be. And if it can operate more or less unfettered, allowing kids as young as 13 to chat, how come this site is so restricted? Also Bisexual.org had an open chat facility which allows anyone to chat simply by clicking on the over 18 statement, and as such this was hardly a bar to the young. Many other sites are similarly "restricted".

I am not saying that this site should be opened up to the very young, but do feel it operates in many ways to the disdavantage of younger bisexuals because of the age bar, which other sites seem to pay lip or no service to whatever.

[julie]

Do you think Drew was wrong to ban Daisy999? Have you noticed that she (?) is back under the name of 'Resurrection'?
Tommy2020

i notice 'Resurrection' are also banned now. i didn't see anything that goes against the posting rules in any of their posts... please tell me...have i missed something?

cheers Julie
:female: x

[darkeyes]

Typical US Sam babes..always pokin there noses in otha peeps affairs wether they want the help or not!

[bi-robin-calif]

i fink it's about time we all just siddown an enjoy a nice cuppa.

There is no trouble so great or grave that cannot be much diminished by a nice cup of tea. --Bernard-Paul Heroux

[csrakate]

Typical US Sam babes..always pokin there noses in otha peeps affairs wether they want the help or not!


Please...let's not resort to making provocative statements like these...While very true in many cases, making such a broad statement will do nothing more than fan the flames of argument. Let's be real here, there is a difference between intellectual debate and downright "throwing down the gauntlet".

I think this site has had enough...let's regroup and as bi-robin says, have a cuppa....Time to move on.

Just my :2cents: (and you better not think about going bananas, fran! LOL The right to give our :2cents: is what you have been arguing for all along!)

Hugs,
Kate

[darkeyes]

Please...let's not resort to making provocative statements like these...While very true in many cases, making such a broad statement will do nothing more than fan the flames of argument. Let's be real here, there is a difference between intellectual debate and downright "throwing down the gauntlet".

I think this site has had enough...let's regroup and as bi-robin says, have a cuppa....Time to move on.

Just my :2cents: (and you better not think about going bananas, fran! LOL The right to give our :2cents: is what you have been arguing for all along!)

Hugs,
Kate

Sowwy mumsy...not me intention 2 offend americans or ne 1 else.. an not americans me gettin at but the government of the place. When yas the most powerful nation on earth its hard not ta try an impose ya will on others...the Brits did it for a century or so an more, but don make it rite.. hate ne 1 who tries 2 lord it ova othas, an the US aint alone in tryin 2 do so...jus the one most able 2 throw its weight about... jus sayin a bit more consideration an restraint wont go amiss.

So afta me wittle huff in chat..ya can add this 2 me botty paddlin lata..luff ya! :bigrin:

[bi-robin-calif]

Careful, Fran--you're starting to be nice. Gotta watch that reputation, ya know ;)

[Fire Lotus]

i notice 'Resurrection' are also banned now. i didn't see anything that goes against the posting rules in any of their posts... please tell me...have i missed something?

cheers Julie
:female: x

I think Daisy999 and Resurrection were one in the same.

[darkeyes]

Careful, Fran--you're starting to be nice. Gotta watch that reputation, ya know ;)

Nice?? moi?? shuddup dick face... tee hee :tong:

[TashaSW]

I think Daisy999 and Resurrection were one in the same.

They were!!!

[TashaSW]

Nice?? moi?? shuddup dick face... tee hee :tong:

lol Ya! You can't be nice... thats ME!!! So go away... out of my nice spot *pitches your butt* Nah, I'll share on those days you want to be nice lol

[Scootertrash]

I am not a regular on this sight, but I know that we are all here at the descresion of the Webmaster and their reps(Moderators). It is their house and their rules.. Break the rules and you don't get invited back..

Well that is how it works at my house anyway

Just my :2cents:

Bill

[darkeyes]

Just my :2cents:

Bill
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kk!!!!!! :eek:

[csrakate]

Just my :2cents: (and you better not think about going bananas, fran! LOL The right to give our :2cents: is what you have been arguing for all along!)

Frances!!!

What did I tell you????? No going bananas at the sign of the two cents!!! LOL!!! Mumsy is gonna have to break out the big paddle now! LOL!

Hugs,
Kate

[TashaSW]

Daisy was upsetting a lot of people so thats why Drew banned her... especially when she started the "fat" post.... that was very hurtful to a lot of people.

Drew wants the board to be a fun place, we are all free to talk about whatever we want but things like race, weight, handicap and so on should never be talked about in a rude manner the way she did it.
Yes she had her perferences but when you have a perferences thats based on things like race, weight, handicap.... you should never say it. It hurts peoples feelings and you come off looking like a BAD person.

Drew could have gotten a lot of angry emails/private messages and he had to do something.. put a end to it.
Maybe he did warn her in email or PM and she ignored them.... when you have been warned once or twice then ya, you're gonna get banned if it keeps up.

We may not always agree with people being banned, which thread was locked
and things like that but the mod and webmaster has every right to control the site in order to make people happy.

People LEAVE message boards when things are out of control and a lot of angry bickering is going on.... when people leave for that reason, it hurts the message board cause that person could say "That board is no good... to many fighting going on." to other people that were thinking of joining.
Drew was simply trying to prevent that from happening :) He wants to keep us all here.

Tasha

[julie]

I think Daisy999 and Resurrection were one in the same.

tasha says they were.... how do you know that? did i miss something?

i'm intrigued!

julie :female: xxx

[Fire Lotus]

tasha says they were.... how do you know that? did i miss something?

i'm intrigued!

julie :female: xxx

They were in the same state,the mannerisms were the same plus......I've been a moderator on another site (and an email list). banning was possible by blocking a person's IP number. I'm guessing, but not totally sure, that Drew may be able to do the same thing here. If he can, then he might have seen that Daisy999 and Resurrection were the same.

[darkeyes]

Frances!!!

What did I tell you????? No going bananas at the sign of the two cents!!! LOL!!! Mumsy is gonna have to break out the big paddle now! LOL!

Hugs,
Kateoooo yumsie mumsy :bigrin:

[julie]

They were in the same state,the mannerisms were the same plus......I've been a moderator on another site (and an email list). banning was possible by blocking a person's IP number. I'm guessing, but not totally sure, that Drew may be able to do the same thing here. If he can, then he might have seen that Daisy999 and Resurrection were the same.

thanks for that Fire Lotus...

i dont know what an IP number is... but its obviously crucial evidence for the gardener :rolleyes:

[TashaSW]

thanks for that Fire Lotus...

i dont know what an IP number is... but its obviously crucial evidence for the gardener :rolleyes:

IP number is a tag that tells who you are. EVERYONE has a IP number, on message boards it can easily be tracked so you know if its the same person or not.
IP usually tells where your localed and stuff like that.

[flexuality]

thanks for that Fire Lotus...

i dont know what an IP number is... but its obviously crucial evidence for the gardener :rolleyes:

IP stands for Internet Provider. It is the "address" of one's computer. It can be a single number or a range of numbers depending on ones' Service Provider, and it is traceable. :cool:

[julie]

thanks all... so encouraging news for gardeners trying to keep on top of the weeding then ;)

[softfruit]

Just to bring another thing to this discussion, what about banning those who are under-age from these sites? On a different site I used to be part of there was a bit of an incident when someone 16 I believe was found out as such, and was banned because it was an 18+ site. Although I recognise why the 18+ rule is in place, does anyone feel that sometimes these young adults should be allowed to stay?

It's one I have wondered about a bit - particularly about the choice of 18. Drew's site, Drew's rules, and all that. But I did wonder where that particular age came from. Depending which country you are in there are a whole range of possible ages of majority / consent etc, so I imagine in some places 18 seems too low, in others peculiarly high.

There's another whole thread waiting to happen there about the support or lack-of that we give to younger bis, even in those areas where there are adult bi support organisations like biphoria, brighton bothways etc. This forum may be something we exclude them from; do we do any work to make sure there is somewhere they can go though? But I think that deserves a forum thread of its own.

[bi-robin-calif]

There's another whole thread waiting to happen there about the support or lack-of that we give to younger bis,

Yes, indeed. It definitely is something that needs to be discussed. But unfortunately, one of the stigmas associated with gays and bis, at least in most places in this country is that we're all pedophiles as well.

And it's a damn shame, too--kids growing up bi today have enough other problems to deal with. They certainly shouldn't have to struggle with their sexual identity for years, th way so many of us had to.