1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

A member dared me to post this thread.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Curmudgeon, Oct 20, 2018.

  1. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Administrator Staff Member

    Hi all,

    I'm posting this thread at the request of a forum member.

    A Single Comment by a moderator, about One Picture, in One Post, has turned into a major debate between Klausspringfield and staff. He is outraged about a comment a moderator made about a picture HE DID NOT POST. The picture in question is attached to this post.

    This "political libertarian", as he describes himself in one of the private messages, has referred to the situation using terms like atrocity, assault, dumb ass mod shit, power hungry tyrants, piss poor, and absurd. Not being happy with the staff responses he received, he dared me to post his private messages in the public forum. Dare taken.

    Normally, per forum policy, we would keep the content of a private message private. In this case this member asked his PMs be shared with the membership. The other participants agreed to release the messages.

    Below are the contents of two private messages. There were some real life names so I replaced them with the corresponding member names [displayed in brackets].

    Curmudgeon

    6.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
    Danny Boy 1966 and windstar like this.
  2. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Administrator Staff Member

    Private Message #1

    Message from Klausspringfield

    Hi [Curmudgeon],
    Please don't take this as me "jumping the chain of command", but Neo has pretty much threatened [Lustingmom1]'s son based on an infraction of the "rules", only he, apparently, sees. In this situation, it isn't even a "close enough to call" situation. The picture in question is one [momssonkevin] posted Sunday in the "Captioned Pictures in the Style of klausspringfield and Lustingmom" thread. Both [Lustingmom1] and I commented in the thread, and, so not to inflate this into a flame war, I also responded to Neo by PM (to which he has yet to respond). Please look at the pic and to [Lustingmom1]'s and my comments ([momssonkevin] only has time for the forum on Sundays, apparently). Maybe you can tell us what is wrong with the picture, from a rules standpoint. All Neo wants to say is that [momssonkevin] has been warned because he is trying to see how far he can go before he crosses the "line". The problem is, that unless this forum has some unwritten rule about mentioning a quasi-legal drug, in explanation for why a naked woman is in the middle of a highway, none of us see what "line" is getting close to getting crossed. If this forum is censoring speech now, about something that doesn't involve sexuality (e.g., rape, bondage, coercion, etc.), I'm not sure I want to be part of it, and I'm pretty sure [Lustingmom1] wouldn't want to either. It was dumb ass Mod shit like this that caused me to leave AI. Nobody wants to be part of a forum run by power hungry tyrants who are using their power to meet their own needs.
    [Klausspringfield]​

    Reply from Curmudgeon

    Isn't this carrying things to an extreme? Neophyte is not a "power hungry tyrant". He applied his best judgement to apply the forum rules. He just gave a warning about a picture that could logically be interpreted as bordering on a topic not allowed on this forum.

    A woman, on a hallucinogen, finds signs she may have had sex, but can't remember, then finds herself naked and alone in the middle of the road.

    One logical interpretation is that maybe someone did have sex with her while she was under the influence of a hallucinogen, and was incapable of providing consent.

    This forum defines rape as sex with an unconscious or intoxicated person. Since the caption did not mention this implied scenario a warning was a suitable response.​

    Message from Klausspringfield

    [Curmudgeon],
    You can read into it what you must. [Lustingmom1] is at some science conference in Baltimore and rooming in an old friend's apartment. We talked for about 2 min on the phone where I brought this up. She will be back in Ohio on Saturday, and we are going to contact [momssonkevin] to see how he feels about this. We'll make a decision about our continuing involvement with this forum over the weekend. In my opinion, Neophyte is a hard right political conservative with obvious sexual picadillos that seems to plague his like (take Roy Moore as an example). His intent appears to be the "banning" of the mentioning of drugs in this forum, and is hiding behind an absurd application of the rule against intoxicated sex. You, of course, are free to view this as you may, but I really take this kind of political censorship seriously. Look at his arguments, the visual content of the picture, and the caption. Only a zealot conservative ass would draw the conclusions he did based on the picture. Members are sensitive to Moderator's responses because they have virtually unbridled capacity to inflict harm by banning menbers interaction with the forum. Yes, it is a great way to keep things the way the Mods want them to be, but it's a piss poor way of developing a trusting relationship with the membership. I left AI because of a similar altercation with a couple of Mods, there. Muff, being Muff, did little to intercede in the dispute. Out of total frustration, I left and came back only when the Mods left, and only to support [Lustingmom1]. If decisions to punish are being made on the basis of political ideology, I want no part of this forum. Either Neophyte is as I assume him to be or he is virtually devoid of intellectual capacity. Anyway, we'll see what transpires over the weekend. BTW, Neo responded to me in a PM with an equally absurd interpretation of the intoxicated sex rule.
    [Klausspringfield]​

    Reply from Curmudgeon

    So far four moderators have agreed that they interpret the post as hinting a rape might have occurred. I'm sorry if our interpretation doesn't match yours. You may be right that this forum is not for you. Stay or leave, it's your decision. If you continue to flame Neophyte I'll make the decision for you.​
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  3. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Administrator Staff Member

    Private Message #2

    Message from Klausspringfield

    Neo, I'm not being argumentative. Just please tell me what rule [momssonkevin] broke. There is no drug-induced sex in the picture, and there is no hint of coercion. The brother she is looking for isn't even in the picture. And, there is no sex act being depicted in the picture. I'm sure all of us would be more than happy to follow the rules, but somebody has to say what the rules are. As Lustingmom put it, the whole scenario is a bit fucked up, but not in a sexually inappropriate way, especially in an incest porn forum. If she was lying on the ground with some drugged out look on her face, with a guy's cock embedded in her, and some remark was made that the drug that was given her to intentionally get her this way, then I would be able to see your point. As it is, I don't see any infraction here, whatsoever. I have no idea what "line" is being approached in this picture and caption, much less what "line" is close to getting crossed..​

    Reply from Neophyte

    (4) Disallowed Content Subjects (all forums)

    This forum is dedicated to the Incest Lifestyle. It is NOT a general porn forum. As such,
    these topics are not allowed to be depicted in Pictures, Video, Text, Avatars, or PMs:

    • Adult Baby - anyone wearing a diaper.
    • BDSM
    • Bestiality - sex between a person and an animal (imaginary creatures exempted)
    • Bondage - restricting movement with any kind of restraint (collar with leash exempted)
    • Dick Pics - close up picture of just a penis, only allowed in this thread: Our Member's Members
    • Rape - forced sex, sex with unconscious person, sex with intoxicated person
    • Scat (coprophilia) - anything involving Feces play
    • Snuff - death of a person caused by another person
    • Spanking - a quick, short, episode of hand only spanking of buttocks is okay.
      Extended spanking (spanking fetish) or use of belt, cane, rod, strap, whip is disallowed.
    • Water Sports (urophilia) - anything involving Urine play
    A person under a hallucinogen is considered intoxicated so [momssonkevin] was promoting Rape. I just told him not to use drugs in his captions. If this explanation is not enough then I will take more stringent action. In the future do not have caption of a person under the influence of a drug looking to have sex because of the drug.​

    Message from Klausspringfield

    Neo,
    You do understand that about 90% of all drug use is VOLUNTARY. What I see you doing here is interpreting a rule to meet your vision of the world. There was no rape being promoted in the picture or caption, also there was no sex being depicted in the picture (except if you consider the woman feeling herself up as sex with herself). Nobody, except the woman, herself, was having SEX WITH AN INTOXICATED PERSON. There could be many reasons why the woman was horny, but pharmacologically, there is no real reason to suspect that the drug was involved in the horniness. [momssonkevin] isn't here to defend himself, but knowing how he thinks, he wasn't trying to imply that a drug was being used to obtain sex. I think that the implication was that it was the drug that explained why a woman was in the middle of a highway fingering herself. The drug was just incidental in the picture, in that it explained a bizarre behavior of the woman. Maybe that was wrong, and I've asked [Curmudgeon] to adjudicate. But, the highlighted rule doesn't apply to either the picture or the caption. [momssonkevin] is a laid back intellectual who would never advocate using a drug to take advantage of a woman. He definitely wasn't trying to see where a "line" was being crossed. He's also somewhat of a genius neuroscientist, so I can see how he would come up with the bizarre scenario in the picture in the first plsce. Doesn't it cause you to question the fact that only you see an infraction (or near infraction) here? I know that you are politically conservative, and I'm libertarian, and I also know that voluntary drug use is one area where the two political philosophies diverge, but try to see this for what it is. At best, it was a totally innocent captioned picture (albeit with incest overtones), and at worst, it was a violation of a totally out of context interpretation of a rule.
    [Klausspringfield]
    Reply from Neophyte

    Why are you arguing this point. I didn't do anything to [momssonkevin], I just said don't use drugs in your captions. This should not be a problem unless he plans on using drugs in more of his captions.​

    Message from Klausspringfield

    The problem is your apparent "problem" with the mention of drugs. As you are speaking to me, I would like to remind you that I didn't post anything that led to this discussion. You warned the son of a very good friend about posting pictures that contained drug references. Seriously, Neo, how do you expect me to react to this as a political libertarian? I have to believe that you have a reasonable amount of intellectual capacity, and that your reaction is actually based on your political opposition to the recreational use of "banned" substances,and not realted to anything contained in the "rules". As the ongoing discussion with [Curmudgeon] is going, [Lustingmom1] and I are going to contact [momssonkevin] on Saturday to discuss this matter (which I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know about). The result of the discussion will be a decision by [Lustingmom1] and me as to whether or not we will continue to contribute to this forum. As I pointed out to [Curmudgeon], one of the things that seems to distinguish political conservatives is their ability to accept their abnormal sexual proclivities (based on population norms, of course), is their steadfast efforts oppose ideas that run contrary to their subjective political opinions (like you with "banned" drugs) [take Roy Moore as an example and his involvement with sex with teenage girls]. I'm not inclined to believe that you are devoid in intellectual reasoning, and therefore believe that your assault on [momssonkevin] was motivated by your political anti-drug philosophy. That's why I'm arguing this. I left AI for a similar, but less meaningful (to me) reasons. Yes you are a Mod, and your voice can strike terror into the membership who disagree with your point of view for fear of loosing their connectivity with this forum. Personally, I don't give a shit about your power trip. We'll wait until [momssonkevin] gets all of the info to determine a course of action, and his will be the ultimate decision as to how [Lustingmom1] react to this atrocity.​
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  4. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Administrator Staff Member

    Private Message #2 continued

    Reply from Neophyte


    I would like to hear everyone's opinion on what I am trying to do.
    [Addressed to the rest of staff after Neophyte added them to the private message.]​

    Reply from Curmudgeon

    [Klausspringfield],
    So far four moderators have agreed that they interpret the post as hinting a rape might have occurred. I'm sorry if our interpretation doesn't match yours. You may be right that this forum is not for you. Stay or leave, it's your decision. If you continue to flame Neophyte I'll make the decision for you.​

    Message from Klausspringfield

    [Curmudgeon],
    So, criticism in PMs is now "flaming"? Also, in my PMs to Neo, I just let him know how I felt, and what I was doing as far as standing up for [momssonkevin]. If you read my text carefully, you would see that, even if it was a "public" statement, it probably wouldn't be considered as "flaming". Please read the text of what I posted on the board word for word, and also what I sent Neo in PMs. The statement by Neo "don't use drugs in your captions." is totally out of touch with the reality of how the rules currently read. I didn't use drugs in any of my captions, and I resent the implication that I mentioned the use of drugs in anything that could be considered a "rape scenario", so please don't accuse me of this. If you want to exclude drugs from any of the content of this forum, then do it. I, personally, think it is pretty oblique, but if you want to make a rule that says "Drugs can not be mentioned in this forum" do it, and that would be fine with me. If there was a rule that explicitly banned the mention of the use of drugs, I'm sure [momssonkevin] would never have brought it up. He had no way of estimating the political leanings of the reviewers of this forum. What I dare you to do, however, is to make this whole conversation public. Then you might get some insight as to what the membership thinks about this, and how ridiculously petty the admin staff is being. You won't do that, of course, because it would reveal to the membership how things are actually adjudicated here, your inability to accept criticism, and your iron fist approach to getting your way. Also, now you are threatening me and, except for insulting your collective ability to consider a counter-point, I didn't have anything to do with the post in question. [Lustingmom1] told me that she came up with issues dealing with changes to the rules that would make this place run more efficiently that, literally, made her pull out her hair, because she was blocked by Moderator opinion and you. I now see the whole "power club" thing first hand. Now, you've played your last card. I either stop arguing this point, or I'm "banned". Yes, that's a really adult way to approach this kind of problem! Maybe the owner should move this forum to a host in Myanmar. I really enjoy this forum and would like to continue to participate here, and I'm pretty sure [Lustingmom1] would agree with me. It's just that if you are going to make these kinds of decisions without considering the opinions of anyone else but the "staff", you are not really advocating the future success of the enterprise.
    [Klasspringfield]​

    Reply from Neophyte

    It was you that introduced politics into this argument.
    It was you that is advocating the use of recreational drugs.
    It was you that compared me to a child molester.
    It was you that assigned meaning to my post that didn't exist.
    It was you that accused the staff and myself of being on a power trip.
    It was you that threatened that if you didn't get your way, you would quit the Forum.
    It is you that is continuing this argument.

    If you had any intelligence, you would go back and reread the original post and my warning and see if anything you are ranting about has anything to do with what was posted. I feel sorry for you for being so narrow minded and obsessed with getting your way. And I would like to hear from [Lustingmom1] and [momssonkevin] to see if they actually share your delusion.​


     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  5. PeterThePiper

    PeterThePiper Trusted Member

    Wow, that is intense. There is a lot of stuff in there that is completely alien to me, especially when it comes to drugs, & I completely understand how the site would wish to keep itself clear from anything connected to the drug scene. Over the years, one thing that I have come to understand, is that there is a huge difference between laws governing rape etc, in the US, & here in Britain & Europe. Our laws clearly state that Rape is the penetration of the vagina or anus by a penis, against the will of the other person, whether that be refusal of consent, or whether under the influence of drugs or alcohol, where consent could clearly not be given. Anything else is classed as Sexual Assault, & while still regarded as a crime, is not treated as rape.
    I am relatively new to this site, so probably not best placed to pass judgement, nor would I wish to, but one thing I would say, is that no matter what the discussion may be about, if you can not discuss it without the use of profanity, name calling or just being rude, then don't discuss it at all.
    Sometimes, what on the face of it can be a relatively clear Site Rule, can easily be broken without any malice or intent. For example, if I mention that my wife likes to be spanked on her bottom during our sex play, I think I am probably ok, but then if I mention that we may use pink fluffy handcuffs, or a cane, THEN I am probably breaking the site rule, yet it is probably something that millions of people enjoy in the daily sex lives every day. Rules can often be broken, without any deliberate intention & a friendly reminder & mutual respect for each other, is all it takes.
    What ever the infringement may be, or even whether it is justified or not, I honestly believe that it comes down to respect. I expect people to be respectful to me, & in return I would always be respectful to them. If someone upsets me, I will simply say we must agree to disagree, & walk away. Getting into a slanging match achieves nothing, & can make a situation a million times worse.
    Like I say, I am not passing any judgements in this particular instance, because I am new to the site, & therefore it is probably none of my business. All I would say, is that in my humble opinion, it is a situation that has been allowed to continue far too long, has clearly become nasty & personal, & perhaps should have been brought to a head a lot earlier. I do understand the need to protect Freedom Of Speech, but if that Freedom Of Speech risks bringing the site into disrespect, or worse, risks breaking laws, then it can not be permitted.
    As my dad always used to say, sometimes Leniency breeds contempt, whereas Clarity breeds Understanding.
    I hope you all resolve this amicably & remember life is too short to be nasty.
     
  6. Dane211

    Dane211 Wife loves me in nylon!

    The caption reads to me as: A female, still high on drugs (since when did fingering yourself naked in the middle of the road was ever appropriate or sane?)
    probably raped earlier and wanting to fuck any guy who happens along no matter the age or disposition.

    The picture is neither arousing nor funny or amusing. With the captioning, IMO, it crosses the line.
     
  7. curiousFred

    curiousFred Trusted.Member

    I neither support drug taking or violence of any kind, but since most things on this forum are imaginary,
    one can assume that the pictures captioning was also imaginary.
    In my humble opinion is was just a badly chosen caption, could have happened top anyone,
    and no big deal should be made of it.
    I thought we were all open minded friends/adults here.
    There are many pictures here, I do not like for many reasons, but keep my opinion to myself.
    Just calm down and carry on.
     
  8. Lady Red

    Lady Red Trusted.Member

    Could not agree more!
    Very disrespectful toward females ! Not sure how and decent male could defend something like this !
     
  9. Floodwire

    Floodwire just looking for a ‘berg to smash

    well, i am very new here, but will voice my opinion if anyone is interested.

    to me, this looks like something that has gotten blown out of proportion and has snowballed into something bigger than it actually should be. the intent of the caption doesnt appear to be rapist in nature, but (as shown by opinions displayed) can be interpreted that way. similarly, the intent of the modertor doesnt appear to be “power hungry” or anything more than a “this kind of goes over the intoxication line” warning. if no action was actually taken against the poster other than saying “dont do this” then where is the issue?

    as far as my interpretation of the caption: the highlighted rules above prohibits intoxicated sexual activity. the caption discusses the confusion of the woman reguarding sexual activity she did not remember, suggesting some sort of sexual activity may have happened while she was intoxicated. so from that, i agree with the staff that it implies rape as defined by the forum rules.

    again, this seems like a minor issue that probably should have wrapped up rather quickly and civily, but i also realized i have only been posting here for about 2 days and my opinion really doesnt carry much weight.
     
  10. Dracoa

    Dracoa Trusted.Member

    Honestly, I side with the mods here. Had no idea what the drug was until it was mentioned to be a drug. The picture itself is fine (from a rules standard anyways), it's the caption that is highly questionable to me. It does seem to imply rape had happened, as defined by sex while under the influence, though there is no sex in the picture itself.
     
    orly6666 and villager like this.
  11. rookie1255

    rookie1255 Trusted.Member

    I side with the mods as well. They review the content on the forum and decide what flies and what doesn't. If challenged they can review their decision and uphold or overturn it. Ideally there would be a checks and balances system where a third party could overrule a mod's decision. Without this system there is certainly a power imbalance. If it were a restaurant and you didn't agree with the dress code, then don't eat there. If you wear something pushing the limits of the dress code, they have the right to send you away and the interpretation of meeting or not meeting the dress code is 100% up to the restaurant. While this could seem unfair, an opening for potential abuse of power, or maybe even a chance to change the interpretation of the dress code on the fly, tough luck.

    As long as the restaurant was acting in the spirit of fairness without malice, I would lean towards agreeing with decisions within their scope of authority. I would say the mod in this case also acted with no malice.

    That being said, I want freedom for everyone. I wish there were subforums for people to combine their incest lifestyle with other kinks in discussion. The subforums would allow people to avoid topics they weren't interested in while maximizing freedom for everyone. Then again, not my forum, not my call. I don't know a whole lot about politics so I don't know if these views put me in some political category that gets hatred from all the other political categories, but you feel free to try to sway my opinion.
     
    villager likes this.
  12. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Administrator Staff Member

    There is. I can, as forum administrator, overrule a moderator and the forum owner, as system administrator, can overrule me.

    As far as fetishes go, this is a niche forum dedicated to incest.
    Tying up, beating, peeing on, or raping someone doesn't really say family love.
     
  13. Mondayfr

    Mondayfr Trusted.Member

    I side with the mods.
    The initial point of debate, the picture, is neither sexy nor funny, and it does imply rape
    More importantly, the insistance of the member to debate it ad nauseam is looking at "out of proportion" in the rear-view mirror.
     
    orly6666, Lady Red and curiousFred like this.
  14. incest_otter

    incest_otter Trusted Member

    Seems like a slightly blurry line to me.
    I actually uploaded my first story the other day, which included some guys smoking weed and having sex. Is that an infraction of the same rule?
    I would certainly say not, since nobody was described as being impaired or not in control.

    The definition of intoxicated according to Merriam-Webster is 'the condition of having physical or mental control markedly diminished by the effects of alcohol or drugs'

    I'm not even sure what the drug in the caption is, but it does mention a lack of memory/awareness, etc. which lends itself to the 'intoxication', etc. in the rules, if we take that to mean incapacitated, vulnerable, not in control. On the hand, it also mentions that she wants to get fucked. So she seems pretty willing and not as if she's being violated.
    Definitely seems to describe a person who is intoxicated, rather than simply smoking a joint or having a few drinks and still being in control.

    Interesting thread. As a new member, it's helpful to learn the dynamics of the forum.
     
  15. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Administrator Staff Member

    In the captioned picture in question, the woman recognizes signs that sex may have occurred but has no memory of it.
    Given that a designer drug was involved, one interpretation is that sex could have happened when the woman was incapable of giving consent. This forum defines sex under these circumstances as rape.
     
    orly6666, villager and amiraj like this.
  16. incest_otter

    incest_otter Trusted Member

    Yeah, I totally agree. That's definitely how it sounds which is, by definition, intoxication.
    It's just that she's described at the 'current time' as wanting more. So it's kind of a confusing caption really.
     
  17. deviantdan

    deviantdan Incest is best

    Looks like a rule violation to me, I don't understand what the debate is here. The rule is unambiguous and I agree with the interpretation of the moderators.
     
  18. villager

    villager Trusted.Member

    I have to agree with " Curudgeon " on the captioned pic , it seem's that the caption highlight's that the young lady is unsure if she has had sex . and that she seem's to have an unusual sexual need , not to mention her total lack of common sense about her location ,and need for a male, any male for sex . i.e how did she get to the middle of the highway ,where are her thing's ,hand bag ,dress, shoes ,where am I !!!!!!!!!! .
     
    orly6666 likes this.
  19. texasj65

    texasj65 A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste

    Captions, by their brevity, leave a lot of information out. This allows the reader to reader to create the backstory. If you see negative connotations in every picture, then that's on you.
     
  20. Danny Boy 1966

    Danny Boy 1966 Trusted Member

    I totally agree with the mod's on this one. While the picture in and of itself doesn't show anything wrong (other than a person in the middle of a highway fingering herself. LOL), the caption does imply rape as defined several times above.
    That said it appears someone is all butt hurt over a slap on the wrist comment saying don't do it anymore. Admin's could have just deleted it all together, but chose to leave it as an example of what not to do.