Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2014, 04:12:36 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 632348
  • Total Topics: 47886
  • Online Today: 227
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 3
Guests: 189
Total: 192

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Troubled by the new edict.  (Read 10655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,942
Troubled by the new edict.
« on: September 11, 2011, 02:16:30 PM »
Let me say I have tremendous respect for Tim Horn, always have, always will. I also understand (I guess) the need for the forums to generate advertising revenue. That said, directly asking members to censor themselves in Off Topic is very troubling to me. Off topic as always been free wheeling, sometimes off color, but that is exactly what makes it off topic. Not sue why, but this smells homophobic to me. Would love to see the name of the advertisers that have encouraged this censorship. Troubling.

Offline zach

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,246
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2011, 02:39:04 PM »
troubled? not yet. puzzled? yes.

how about an off topic area for members only, not even readable by the public.

maybe we could have a secret handshake

Offline Theyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,488
  • Current ambition. Walk the Dog .
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2011, 03:00:56 PM »
We should keep to the taste confines off John Walters.
"If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people ."  Tony Benn

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,501
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2011, 03:06:43 PM »
I'm adding the comments made by Tim Horn regarding this subject, as some people may have not seen the sticky post.

Please keep things in good taste

"We're trying to diversify our advertising sales in order to keep POZ.com and AIDSmeds.com -- and, by extension, these Forums -- up and running. Just as we don't take too kindly to the content of some ads, such as shady snake oil marketing and unverifiable offshore pharmacies, some advertisers haven't taken too kindly with some of the content in the Off Topic Forum.

While I don't know if I want us to be doing business with such prickly and sensitive companies, the complaints thus far are not without merit. This remains an HIV/AIDS information and support board. There's no reason why links to out-of-context photos, videos or websites that can be considered pornographic need to be posted in these pages.  

This issue has been discussed internally by Smart + Strong management and, if off-topic posts in poor taste continue, I will be asked to shut down the Off Topic Forum.

Nobody wants this -- I certainly don't. So please think before you start a new thread, or post in an existing thread, with comments, images or links that potentially paint these Forums in bad light.

These are your Forums. It's up to you guys to use good judgment to protect them. "

Tim

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,359
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2011, 04:01:49 PM »
Yes -- while I do sort of get the point, I don't like it at all.  Basically, this is NOT our forum -- it is a revenue generater for Smart + Strong and if we don't abide by their rules, well, we shall all be banned.

Bottomline -- they are using our infections and our need for support to generate $$$$.  Yes, it costs money to maintain a site, but this site only exists because of US -- if they think their advertisers are more important than us -- let them try to generate revenue without us.

Support sites shouldn't be controlled by advertisers.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2011, 04:15:29 PM »
some advertisers haven't taken too kindly with some of the content in the Off Topic Forum.

Tim[/b]

Well, I think this whole thing can be much better addressed if we're told in black and white what exactly the advertisers find objectionable, rather than speculating.

Only then can it be decided who is being more unreasonable-  us or them.

That said, I share the sentiment of the other posters that it is troubling.
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline Theyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,488
  • Current ambition. Walk the Dog .
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2011, 04:28:14 PM »
I'm adding the comments made by Tim Horn regarding this subject, as some people may have not seen the sticky post.

Please keep things in good taste


This issue has been discussed internally by Smart + Strong management and, if off-topic posts in poor taste continue, I will be asked to shut down the Off Topic Forum.

 Nobody wants this -- I certainly don't. So please think before you start a new thread, or post in an existing thread, with comments, images or links that potentially paint these Forums in bad light.

These are your Forums. It's up to you guys to use good judgment to protect them. "
Tim


The activity off the people who post is what draws the many people who are not members to these sites that S&S can then sell advertising on the backs off, a bit more respect  please . And ,Tim you may be asked ,just say no you will have a lot off support.

Theyer/Michael.

added If S&S can close down the forums then Tim they are CLEARLY NOT "our" forums
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 04:35:46 PM by Theyer »
"If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people ."  Tony Benn

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,253
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2011, 04:35:56 PM »
Why do I think the only problem for advertisers is links to pornographic images.  

If thats the only issue, why not compromise and keep off such links.  Do we really need those links?  
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,900
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2011, 04:49:27 PM »
I hope they don't notice this:

"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,100
  • 1DPxR156NnouErf4f51CsCMubMYw84j5Kv
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2011, 04:50:45 PM »
I understand where Tim is coming from, and I can respect it to a certain point...but there is too much vaqueness in the new "edict".

if off-topic posts in poor taste continue - what is going to now be considered in poor taste? the term poor taste is relative is it not?

or post in an existing thread, with comments, images or links that potentially paint these Forums in bad light - again, can someone define this?

as far as pornography, are we not allowed to post something as "NSFW" any longer? where is the cutoff on this? Can I no longer post a pic of James Middleton mooning us? and since my Beiber pics were censored and removed I am assuming those were in poor taste also.

-W
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 04:52:59 PM by WillyWump »
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,900
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2011, 04:52:47 PM »
and since my Beiber pics were censored and removed I am assuming those were in poor taste also.


This is all clearly your fault.
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,359
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2011, 04:53:29 PM »
Why do I think the only problem for advertisers is links to pornographic images.  

If thats the only issue, why not compromise and keep off such links.  Do we really need those links?  

Who gets to decide what is pornographic??  I daresay, what you and I (and most forum members) might deem NOT porno -- some advertiser might think IS porno.  Therein lies the rub -- where do we let the advertisers draw the line on what we should talk about in OUR forums (if they are, indeed, our forums).

M
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,100
  • 1DPxR156NnouErf4f51CsCMubMYw84j5Kv
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2011, 04:55:11 PM »
This is all clearly your fault.

oh whatever Mr. "Daddies on Twinks" linker.

*oops, am I allowed to say that ^*
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,253
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2011, 05:02:54 PM »
Yes, what is pornographic.

I am not sure it's our nuance to judge, or our problem to solve. Sounds like a problem for site monitors and people with an economic interest to set the clear criteria.

I know sites like Grindr have very specific list of criteria of what can/cannot be posted as a public pic. All we would need is a similar list of what is and is not OK.  And then, perhaps, debate those criteria.

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline hope_for_a_cure

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,502
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2011, 05:22:52 PM »
Its all about money.. thats all it is. 

Offline RAB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined March 2003
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2011, 05:25:26 PM »
Like the majority of posters, I don't like this at all.  Allowing the advertisers to dictate/censor what can and can not be posted is not right. 

I guess I can understand the request not to post links to a porno site.  What I can't accept has to do with the issue of content. 

So if I post something using sexually explicit language (the two F words come to mind) then that's not "tasteful".  ?

And while we're on the subject of what advertisers bring to this forum, has anyone clicked on this ad?  It takes you to Newsmax, and one of the most biased, rightwing polls I've seen. There's a second one featuring a gleaming Rick Perry, which is just as biased.

[/img]

Dach, thank you for bringing this subject up.  Bocker, my initial reaction was the same as yours, well said.

RAB   :(


Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,359
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2011, 05:27:04 PM »
I am not sure it's our nuance to judge, or our problem to solve. Sounds like a problem for site monitors and people with an economic interest to set the clear criteria.

This comment is scarier than the topic itself.  How can a member say this isn't "our problem to solve", but it is the problem of those with an "economic interest" to solve.  How is it that they can dictate?  This is a support site -- first and foremost, at least from my vantage point.  I suppose from the vantage point of those with an "economic interest" it is a revenue stream first.

Now -- I get the whole point of this, I work for a big business where "brand" is everything.  The problem is that they don't have a need for this site -- but we do.  Many folks have gone from the edge to living life again because of this site.  Quite frankly, if S&S wants to expand it's advertiser base, perhaps they should be upfront with them about what this site is and is not.  If they chose not to show their ads, then go find someone else.  If they don't do this, then they may find advertisers leaving because no one is using this site.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,501
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2011, 05:47:37 PM »
All I can say is this...

A few potential advertisers haven't taken too kindly to some of the content in the Off Topic forum -- the porn thread(s), some of the language, etc. Granted, if these advertisers feel this way, I don't know if I even want them on POZ or AIDSmeds. But the issue has been discussed internally by Smart + Strong management and one possibility is that I will be asked to shut down the Off Topic Forum.

I don't think anyone wants this -- I don't. So think before you start a new thread, or post in an existing thread, with comments or content that will potentially paint these Forums in bad light.

These are your Forums. It's up to you guys to use good judgment to protect them.

Tim

This is the thread that contains the above quote: http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39534.0 and I'm asking that people stop calling this an edict. It broaches a delicate subject that deserves our respect if we are to be taken seriously in proposing solutions. Tim Horn has never been one to dictate what others do and he's expressing an issue that may create problems in the forums. If you want to blame anyone, blame me for suggesting he post it separately, but he's presenting it as a topic for discussion, not as an edict. He has a problem and by extension that means we have a problem, so how do we want to solve it?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 05:57:31 PM by killfoile »

Offline RAB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined March 2003
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2011, 06:11:33 PM »
but he's presenting it as a topic for discussion, not as an edict. He has a problem and by extension that means we have a problem, so how do we want to solve it?

Joe:  if it was meant to be a topic of discussion, he wouldn't have locked the thread with his announcement.  How do you discuss something in a locked thread?  And as far as I can tell Dach is the only one who used the word "edict", the rest of us were simply stating our thoughts, feelings, and opinions.

To answer your question about how do we solve it, I think Smart and Strong have already answered that.

I, like so many others, have a tremendous amount of respect for Tim.  Having had the pleasure of meeting him (and Andy  ) in Montreal, I can say I adore them both. 

RAB 

(Who's a wee bit annoyed right now!)

Offline Robert

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,643
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2011, 07:19:16 PM »

I think this is more about numbers than content.  I don't have access to the stats and I'm not about to start digging for them but it is my impression that the number of  active members, new members, 'hits' (people who read the forums without logging on), posts, etc have all dropped dramatically in the last year or so.  The advertisers look at the numbers,and start asking questions and looking for answers.  Perhaps the value for them has flattened out or is  even declining and they're skittish about the future.

Maybe they think they would be better off taking their money elsewhere.

Maybe Tim sees a trend he doesn't like and is trying to fix it before it's too late.
..........

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,501
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2011, 07:23:30 PM »
Joe:  if it was meant to be a topic of discussion, he wouldn't have locked the thread with his announcement.  How do you discuss something in a locked thread?  And as far as I can tell Dach is the only one who used the word "edict", the rest of us were simply stating our thoughts, feelings, and opinions.

To answer your question about how do we solve it, I think Smart and Strong have already answered that.

I, like so many others, have a tremendous amount of respect for Tim.  Having had the pleasure of meeting him (and Andy  ) in Montreal, I can say I adore them both.  

RAB  

(Who's a wee bit annoyed right now!)

It became a topic for discussion when Dox started the thread and it might have been helpful if the topic was introduced with the background info I attached. I'm as incensed as anyone, as this was one of the primary concerns expressed by the forums, when Peter announced the sale of the site. This site is no longer owned and operated by poz people as it was since inception and now we have to face this new reality. All I am suggesting is that the issue here is the Off Topic forum, not how it was posted, etc.

I'm not sure if we can even answer this problem as no matter how you look at it, it involves censure of certain ideas/images that paying advertisers may find offensive. What a slippery slope that becomes, as the morals/ideals of non-positive people are guidance for what is allowed in this forum of poz people. It feels like being told that we sympathize with your disease, but only to a point, and if "it makes us" uncomfortable then we may need to alter the site.

Who is "us"? and What is "it"?

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,359
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2011, 08:58:31 PM »
All I am suggesting is that the issue here is the Off Topic forum, not how it was posted, etc.

Joe,

Please go back and you will see that everyone was discussing the issue and not how it was posted until you came in and complained about the word "edict".  While I am hopeful that Tim didn't mean for it to come across that way, if you read his post there is NO MENTION OF A DISCUSSION, therefore, Dash started a thread to allow the discussion of what appeared to be an "edict".

Other than that -- everyone who has responded here, with the exception of Mecch, seems to agree that this is a horrible slippery slope that the membership should be involved with in addressing.  Because at this point, the message delivered (whether intentional or not) seems to be -- we must keep the expanded group of advertisers happy at all costs.  Even when some of the advertisers seem to be from groups that don't really have our best interests at heart.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,501
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2011, 09:11:33 PM »
Joe,

Please go back and you will see that everyone was discussing the issue and not how it was posted until you came in and complained about the word "edict".  While I am hopeful that Tim didn't mean for it to come across that way, if you read his post there is NO MENTION OF A DISCUSSION, therefore, Dash started a thread to allow the discussion of what appeared to be an "edict".

I was trying to add "context" to where this all came from and that's why I said it was too bad that the background was not included in a post about this subject. Now I feel like we're going after each other as if I was somehow advocating for how this discussion came about. I added what I thought was relevant, as the locked post makes a lot more sense with the background included.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2011, 09:49:17 PM »
At the risk of getting harpooned here, I have taken the time to read, re-read, and read again Tim Horn’s post: (I apologize for the length of the post)

First:
“We're trying to diversify our advertising sales in order to keep POZ.com and AIDSmeds.com -- and, by extension, these Forums -- up and running.”

Message: If diversification of funding is not attained, poz.com and AIDmeds.com – and by extension – will NOT keep running. 

Second:
“While I don't know if I want us to be doing business with such prickly and sensitive companies, the complaints thus far are not without merit.”

Message: Tim is not comfortable with allowing advertisers (“prickly and sensitive companies”) to dictate and/or censor the forums, but also realizes the reality of the situation and also knows that, in some instances, the complaints are justified ---- heck, I have even questioned the appropriateness of some posts.

Third:
“This remains an HIV/AIDS information and support board. There's no reason why links to out-of-context photos, videos or websites that can be considered pornographic need to be posted in these pages.”

Message: What do out-of-context photos, videos or websites that can be considered pornographic have to do with providing information or support for those with questions about HIV/AIDS or infected/affected by HIV/AIDS– which is the purpose of the forums?

Fourth:
“…if off-topic posts in poor taste continue, I will be asked to shut down the Off Topic Forum. ..Nobody wants this -- I certainly don't.”

Message: Nowhere is Tim saying anything about other topic areas of the Forums – such as AM I, Living With, Positive Women, etc.– he has limited his message to focusing on an area of the forums that for the most part has nothing to do with the information and support priority of the forums, but is appropriately named “Off Topic.”

Additionally, Tim makes clear that he does not want to have to shut down the OFF TOPIC forum on the site

Fifth:
“So please think before you start a new thread, or post in an existing thread, with comments, images or links that potentially paint these Forums in bad light.

These are your Forums. It's up to you guys to use good judgment to protect them.”

Message: Tim leaves the responsibility to assess whether our threads or comments, images, or links may paint the forums in a bad light…. He does not use the word censor (by S+S, him, the other moderators, or even “self-censorship.”)

Conclusion: I think Tim is being as diplomatic and forthcoming in his post as possible – while also pointing out the reality of life.  I think if anyone has the funding to open up their own site, which would be totally free of any of this type of guidance, then they should do so --- although, I will say that no matter what site someone goes to, there will always be some type of limitation placed on what can be posted.

To me, Tim’s post, in which he is specifically discussing the “Off Topic” area of the forum, empowers the members; trusts in the judgment of members; and is based on ensuring that these forums – which have a primary mission of providing information and support (which occurs predominantly through the Living With, AM I, Positive Women, Treatment and Side Effects, AM Gatherings, Mental Health and associated topic areas outside of “Off Topic”) stay operational.

With better, more mainstream advertising, not only will the forums be able to continue to operate, but possibly the site will become more dependable and can have additional enhancements added.  Also, let us not forget, that as ads from mainstream advertisers grow and the site grows, its members can actually have an expanded voice – a voice that can command attention of these advertisers– through our purchases and support of their products and services.

While I can understand and agree that the situation should be monitored, so that the freedom of speech of members – particularly in regards to providing information and support -- is not infringed upon, I don’t see anything in Tim’s post that sparks a need to sound the alert or resist “doing the right thing,” particularly when not doing so places these forums in jeopardy not only for current members, but also for those members yet to come.

September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,100
  • 1DPxR156NnouErf4f51CsCMubMYw84j5Kv
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2011, 11:03:51 PM »
Thanks for that synopsis Phillip, maybe I am wrong but I think most everyone "gets" the message Tim is conveying, but there are questions, at least in my mind, of exactly what is considered off limits or offensive now. I just have a problem with a message that states in essence "be careful what you post or else we will shut it down because some outside people are unhappy"... It would be nice to know what is considered offensive now, yes there are obvious examples but where exactly is the "cut off" point now?

I think it would be good to know the specifics before we mount a rebellion.

Of course, I am sure Tim will clarify all this when he gets back on.

-Will
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,942
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2011, 11:48:22 PM »
Until someone tells me who the advertisers are, and what they find offensive, I remain seriously troubled by this. Since the majority of us are gay and post about our lives, well you do the math. Oh and for the record, sadly this is not our forum. I do want to thank the majority of you for your responses.

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,942
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2011, 11:54:53 PM »
Oh and Joe you should be more concerned about the words you might not be able to use than the word I chose to use. ;)

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,253
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2011, 07:39:28 AM »
Don't put words in my mouth.  Some of you have misinterpreted my thoughts. I agree its a slippery slope. All "censorship" is.  All i was pointing out is that its up to Tim and moderators and the sponsors to explain what "good taste" is and "bad taste".   Seems to me this could be clarified before going into great arguments about what might be lost, or freedom of expression, or some kind of homophobia, or prejudice against HIV+ people, and so on and so on.

Once the powers explain their reservations, then it would be a fruitful discusssion by members.  Maybe.

Also, totally get the point about, well, who really has the "power".  The members who create the content. Or the sponsors who enable the platform.   Seems to me both do.  

Some people see things in terms of black or white, mutually exclusive positions, contrast and conflict.  This limits progress.



« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 07:41:34 AM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,942
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2011, 07:50:43 AM »
 

Some people see things in terms of black or white, mutually exclusive positions, contrast and conflict.  This limits progress.





The "some people" would be you Meech.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,359
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2011, 07:54:07 AM »
I was trying to add "context" to where this all came from and that's why I said it was too bad that the background was not included in a post about this subject. Now I feel like we're going after each other as if I was somehow advocating for how this discussion came about. I added what I thought was relevant, as the locked post makes a lot more sense with the background included.

Joe,

I think you are being a bit over sensitive here -- I was not "going after" anyone.  I wasy simply pointing out my thoughts on why the word "edict" seemed (repeat, seemed) to be correct given the original locked post.  I knew the context, I read Tim's post.  Whether or not it was included in this one -- I got what he said.  The only person who can provide any additional context to that for me is Tim.
I believe that you and I are in agreement on the substance of this thread, so please don't accuse me of attacking you when I am not - as always, I have the utmost respect for you.


Philly,

you make good points, but it is all still a little to vague and open-ended for my liking.  As Dach points out, discussing sex, especially gay sex, is often seen as "bad taste" by many.  Additionally, to say that the Off-Topics forum isn't really about support is not entirely true.  For some folks here, this forum is an outlet that helps them deal with life -- that means this is also a "social" outlet for them.  I would guess that the Off-Topics allows some folks to blow off some steam and have a laugh in a life that might not have a lot of opportunities for such.  They not only get support by learning or venting about HIV, but about life in general.  Yes, we can all be mindful of what we post, but not knowing when and what might send some advertiser over the edge is simply too "Big Brother" for my tastes.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,942
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2011, 08:14:35 AM »
As "open" as many of us would like the forums to be, censorship is already practiced in the forums. We have moderators that are quite good at not allowing racist, sexist or homophobic remarks or images to go unchallenged. It may come in the form of a warning, a TO, or deleting what a moderator judges offensive. Sometimes quietly, without many of us knowing they were ever posted. We censor each other by debating content and meaning, or just by putting in our two cents. Last but not least the vast majority practice self-censorship by not posting offensive words or picture. Why we need anyone to tell us "watch what you post" is beyong me.

Offline hope_for_a_cure

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,502
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2011, 08:44:55 AM »
censorship is already practiced in the forums.

Selective censorship exists here.  Its been my observation that a select few can pretty much spew out all the venomous verbal vomit they can without recourse. 

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 24,399
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2011, 08:59:24 AM »
A careful reading of Tim's words makes it very clear to me how thoughtfully he has phrased what he had to say. In a respectful and considerate way he is carefully weighing the issue of self-censorship with maintaining the good financial health of the site, a site which means a lot to all of you and many more who visit here and don't necessarily write in as often as others.

So I see it as a request to use the cherished freedoms here with some judicious self-editing. That still leaves lots of room for the self-expression and sharing which make this such a special  and worthwhile community.  

I've known Tim for a long time and I think we all know his care and devotion here goes far beyond merely being a job.

Just wanted to pop in to say those words.

Cheers to all.
 

Andy Velez

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #33 on: September 12, 2011, 10:49:43 AM »
Thanks Will...

However, with all due respect (and you know I have the utmost respect for you as well as many others here) -
I don't need clarification on what is considered offensive or what examples what constitute the "cut off" point.

I think a good rule of thumb (because there are probably an infinite amount of examples that could be given and a lot of gray areas) is:  If you think it might be construed as offensive, in poor taste, or abusive then probably best to error on the side of caution and not post it or run it by someone else and get their opinion (although that may not sit well or work well)---- I don't think that is going to significantly impact on anyone's ability to provide support or information.  There is also a PM function - so, members have the ability to share somethings that might not be seen as appropriate for everyone's eyes that way....

I think if Tim provides clarification on what constitutes inappropriate or offensive - there will still be questions or some may use it as further "proof" of censorship.  This site allows a lot more flexibility in what it allows to be posted than most other sites on the interwebs.  There are some extremely intelligent people here.  Each of us functions on a daily level in society and have done so successfully for many years.  I don't think anyone is asking too much for people to govern themselves accordingly.

Anyway, just my two cents ------ I have an indescribable amount of appreciation for the work and challenges that Tim and the moderators face in keeping the site not only physically open, but also as open as possible to the views and opinions of those who make up its membership and guests.

With respect,
Phil

Thanks for that synopsis Phillip, maybe I am wrong but I think most everyone "gets" the message Tim is conveying, but there are questions, at least in my mind, of exactly what is considered off limits or offensive now. I just have a problem with a message that states in essence "be careful what you post or else we will shut it down because some outside people are unhappy"... It would be nice to know what is considered offensive now, yes there are obvious examples but where exactly is the "cut off" point now?

I think it would be good to know the specifics before we mount a rebellion.

Of course, I am sure Tim will clarify all this when he gets back on.

-Will
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 10:51:28 AM by phildinftlaudy »
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,060
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #34 on: September 12, 2011, 11:43:58 AM »
Additionally, to say that the Off-Topics forum isn't really about support is not entirely true.  For some folks here, this forum is an outlet that helps them deal with life -- that means this is also a "social" outlet for them.  I would guess that the Off-Topics allows some folks to blow off some steam and have a laugh in a life that might not have a lot of opportunities for such.  They not only get support by learning or venting about HIV, but about life in general.
and a quick look at the content in "Off-Topic" shows quite a few posts that probably would have worked just as well in "Living With" anyway:

2011 St. Petersburg Aidswalk pictures
Gay blood donation ban likely to be lifted in the UK.
Hep C Cleared !
GO K-Y - First TV Commercial Featuring Lesbians
F**K AIDS 

Heck, most of what gets written on this site (including OT) could go into LW because much of it has to do with us dealing with something in our lives, which is influenced by the HIV in our lives. ;)
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #35 on: September 12, 2011, 12:04:22 PM »
Phil, thank you. You get it. I hope everyone reads and re-reads your two posts.

Nobody wants to see these forums heavily censored and that is not what this is about. It's more about using a little bit of common sense. For example, does that thread you're posting in really need a link to a close-up of someone showing off their anus? It's not a homophobic thing, it's a common decency thing. All we're asking is that people think before posting.

As this site deals with a sexually transmitted virus, of course we're going to talk about sex and that's not going to change. It's the gratuitous nudity and explicit photos that can be a problem. Can't we all be adults here and accept that not everyone finds it appropriate?

As Phil points out, if you have a photo of some hot bod and want to share it, you can always take it to PM. Keep in mind that people of all ages and from all walks of life visit this site. It's not just the advertising companies who might be offended when they innocently click on a link and find themselves looking at someone's anus.

I don't think many people realise how much pressure Tim is under and how loathed he was to have to ask us to self-monitor what we post. He has fought - and is fighting - tooth and nail to keep these forums up and running. They cost a lot of money to run and the ad revenue is a necessary evil.

Tim deserves our respect. He does not deserve to be hauled over the coals over a simple request to watch what we're posting. He's counting on us to use our common sense and intelligence to know when something is a bit too risqué to post in the public forums. Please don't let him down, and please don't be the cause of these forums shutting down. These forums are far too important to let them be taken away because you just had to post a link to nudity or porn. 

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,900
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #36 on: September 12, 2011, 12:06:41 PM »
Can I make a joke now about your avatar choice, Ann? ;D
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,104
  • "Butterflies are free."
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #37 on: September 12, 2011, 12:17:24 PM »
Thanks Ann.

Can I make a joke now about your avatar choice, Ann? ;D

And, Ms. P., child you are too much for this universe.  ;D
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2011, 12:42:30 PM »
I’ll try to be as clear as I possibly can here. Some of the remarks here have knocked me on my ass and I have no desire to stretch this out beyond what is absolutely necessary.

Over the past six months, we’ve had discussions with two advertising agencies—one representing a health insurance company providing premiums to people with preexisting conditions; the second representing a line of neutraceuticals—about advertising across POZ and AIDSmeds. All was going well, until we received notices that they would not be advertising with us because of pornographic images found in the Forums, with most examples from the “I Love Porn” thread.

In response, we suggested that they consider advertising on all non-Forums pages (a number of other advertisers do this because they don’t want to be associated with pages that involve “user generated content”). But because of the brand association with the Forums, our counter argument with the above mentioned advertisers didn’t hold water.

Please keep in mind, this isn’t only about finding advertising to support the Forums, but finding online advertising for everything available through the Smart + Strong network: Poz.com, AIDSmeds.com and realhealth.com. To be more specific, I need more money, from a variety of sources, to hire additional writers, to expand our existing content and to bring back great missed interactive programs like Check My Meds.

Nobody at Smart + Strong lost sleep over the two situations described above, but it did prompt discussions regarding the need for such threads.  Questions were raised as to whether these threads have potentially frightened off other potential advertisers. Questions were also raised as to whether these threads, which clearly do reflect tremendous gay male participation, potentially scare off many non-gay male people living with HIV.

I don’t know – nobody can factually answer any of these questions, either here in the Forums or internally at Smart + Strong. But I can’t disprove the possibilities either.

I also want to make something very clear. I fight, tooth and nail, for AIDSmeds and these Forums on a regular basis. As this is a business and I work for, and get paid by, this business – there’s no sugarcoating these facts – I need to pick and choose my fights carefully and I cannot and will not go out on a limb (risk losing my job, basically) in defense of Forums members’ rights to post sexually explicit content, out of the context of what this site is about, when I have much larger (and significantly more important) battles to fight.  

My original note was intentionally vague. I’m not going to get into what is considered pornography or tasteful. Note – I haven’t deleted the “I Love Porn” thread. However, I did recently remove a thread that contained a link, very early on, to an image of a splayed ass oozing ejaculate. So I suppose I can offer some clarity: DO NOT post messages with embedded images that are sexually explicit or reveal genitalia and do not link directly to sexually graphic images.  I’m loathe to come up with analogies here – the “only post what you wouldn’t mind your mother or sister seeing” model simply doesn’t work – but… please… if it’s not HIV related and clearly NSFW, ask yourself whether it really needs to be posted in the Forums or linked to from a message.  

I don’t know what else to add. This has consumed the better part of my day and, yes, for the first time I have taken criticism on a deeply personal level. Please understand that I have nothing else to say on the matter other than what I’ve written here.

Tim  

Edited to add: Please also know that links to adult sites embedded in messages potentially stop people from accessing these Forums -- possibly any content available through POZ or AIDSmeds -- because of porn-blocking software installed on some computers, such as in various households, at places of employment, schools and libraries. Thus, we're not just talking about funding concerns and appeal to non-gay people living with HIV, but also accessibility issues.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 01:00:09 PM by Tim Horn »

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2011, 12:52:31 PM »
Tim:

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond in an honest and frank manner.

To be honest, your post got me a bit teary-eyed.  Maybe my hormones are in overdrive - but, I would rather believe that it is because I don't know what I would do without this site.

The friendships, information, and support received on here, for me, have been immeasurable and nothing short of lifesaving and life-affirming.

I think that the moderators and you do an excellent job of allowing freedom of expression from members and guests who literally come from all parts of the globe and all walks of life.

I want nothing more than to see this site grow (as long as there is a disease called HIV/AIDS).  I want its message of hope, support, and accurate information to be available to as many people as possible.

I think it behooves every member to contribute to the success of the site so that it will be seen as a model approach to assisting those living with, affected by, or needing information about HIV/AIDS. 

Kudos to you and your team, as always, your approach to addressing this issue and concerns of members is stellar.

-Phil
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,002
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2011, 12:58:34 PM »
Tim,

I appreciate your position and as someone who frequently posts in "Off Topic" and "I Love Porn" I will be mindful of what I post. For the record, I wasn't fazed by your request and the only reason I responded to this is because this issue has upset you.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 08:11:26 PM by GSOgymrat »

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,501
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2011, 01:05:47 PM »
I also want to make something very clear. I fight, tooth and nail, for AIDSmeds and these Forums on a regular basis. As this is a business and I work for, and get paid by, this business – there’s no sugarcoating these facts – I need to pick and choose my fights carefully and I cannot and will not go out on a limb (risk losing my job, basically) in defense of Forums members’ rights to post sexually explicit content, out of the context of what this site is about, when I have much larger (and significantly more important) battles to fight. 

Dear Tim, Ann and Andy,

I had no idea the pressure you face to keep these forums up and running, as I thought the forums were doing very well financially. This seems to be one of those times when a little more information really clarifies the issue at hand. If I said anything that any of you found offensive I deeply apologize as that was not my intent. I love these forums and the reality that they could "disappear", due to a lack of funding, was not something that I seriously considered happening. Thank you for all you do for these forums and for your honesty in addressing this situation.

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,104
  • "Butterflies are free."
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2011, 01:25:50 PM »
I’ll try to be as clear as I possibly can here. Some of the remarks here have knocked me on my ass and I have no desire to stretch this out beyond what is absolutely necessary.

.....

I also want to make something very clear. I fight, tooth and nail, for AIDSmeds and these Forums on a regular basis. As this is a business and I work for, and get paid by, this business – there’s no sugarcoating these facts – I need to pick and choose my fights carefully and I cannot and will not go out on a limb (risk losing my job, basically) in defense of Forums members’ rights to post sexually explicit content, out of the context of what this site is about, when I have much larger (and significantly more important) battles to fight.  

I don’t know what else to add. This has consumed the better part of my day and, yes, for the first time I have taken criticism on a deeply personal level. Please understand that I have nothing else to say on the matter other than what I’ve written here.

Tim  


Tim,

As my late partner used to say "You brought it home!" to note intent and point--all made crystal clear.

Thank you for all of your hard work.
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline Jody

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,818
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2011, 01:39:48 PM »
As one of the senior members of this great website, I was one of the first members to request the later named "Off-topic forum".  I for one candidly discussed sex, after hours clubs and so on back then, when quite frankly few others would do so and some members were none too thrilled.  (Looking back who would be thrilled to hear about me having sex).  ;)   But after all most of us were living day to day on our meds but we had our lives as well, and yes: People with AIDS want to have fun too.  Off-topic was a way of giving us all the opportunity to get down and dirty, have a few laughs and to enjoy the company here as well as to have all the other forums for people to learn, ask questions and give and receive support on illness, medications, doctor visits, family and work issues, insurance issues, etc. Off topic was a separate place to go that others could avoid if they chose.

So it hurts to realize that the world has changed and we must adapt from the days of being an innocent little website that was somewhat obscure 10 years ago.  Having visited the offices of Smart and Strong in Manhattan I saw many hard working, good people trying to bring us a great POZ magazine and also to keep our website going strong for all of us.  This costs money- salaries, benefits, office space rent and so on.

So while sex and porn and fun topics are a part of what we come here for I don't have an issue with doing away with porn links and the like if women, young folks, straight people and even some gay men might find them offensive, thereby driving away prospective advertisers.  Tim is basically telling us that life as we know it cannot be sustained in its current form and we have to make some slight adjustments.   Believe me it hurts me too but what is the alternative, no site at all?

Tim and Regan are the bosses and if we want to click on Aidsmeds a year from now we have to make a slight adjustment and still have the site available for all of us in the HIV community, that is more important in 2011 than posting a piece of ass, while that is fun for so many of us there are plenty of websites in cyber space for that.

Jody
"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world".
 "Try to discover that you are the song that the morning brings."

Grateful Dead

Offline aztecan

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,384
  • 29 years positive, 56 years a pain in the butt
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #44 on: September 12, 2011, 03:15:50 PM »
Having read through this thread and mulled it over, I would like to add my 2 cents worth.

We can, and will, have frank and pointed discussions about sensitive issues because they come with the territory here. 

However, I am virtually certain the majority of us are familiar with human anatomy and don't need a refresher via photos or links  in the Off Topic forum.

There are plenty of porn sites out there, but there is only one AIDSMeds. This place has been a welcome source of support ant camaraderie for me, something I cannot access anywhere else, either on line or in my community.

This site has evolved since its inception, indeed even during my tenure here. It will continue to do so. Above all,  it is a great site that has helped many people.

HUGS,

Mark
"May your life preach more loudly than your lips."
~ William Ellery Channing (Unitarian Minister)

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,942
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2011, 04:26:07 PM »
As I said when I started this thread I have the utmost respect for Tim Horn and understand the enormous pressure he must be under running the Forums. That said, I sincerely believe the questions I raised were fair and justified. I asked for clarification and an explanation and Tim delivered both. I take him at his word and that's all I need.

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,877
  • the one and original newt
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2011, 04:26:39 PM »
The alternative might be some people donate, say, $some (or buy a share or two). Then the zombie snuff movies stills can stay. Perhaps people could even buy Lose Your Time Out For Free vouchers?

HIV removes much fought for aspects of life and liberty, and I believe it fulfils a good kick back and chill function. Perhaps as valuable as the serious areas. For me it's there when shit stuff gets too much.

However, servers and conference reports need paying for.

- matt

Now playing: something about the late veneer on the inner core (BBC)
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,100
  • 1DPxR156NnouErf4f51CsCMubMYw84j5Kv
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2011, 05:08:01 PM »
Thanks Tim for the clarification.  ;) We appreciate everything you do to keep these Forums up and running.

-Will
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Cliff

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,645
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2011, 05:23:00 PM »
awww, no more drugs, dick and ass.  Shame...but just as well, I turned 36 this year so no need for any of that shit....plus who hasn't become more and more uncomfortable with visiting here whilst at work. 

Bridge, anyone?

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,877
  • the one and original newt
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2011, 05:24:46 PM »
Canasta?
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,100
  • 1DPxR156NnouErf4f51CsCMubMYw84j5Kv
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2011, 05:28:53 PM »
awww, no more drugs, dick and ass.   

Bridge, anyone?

Roflmao
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Jody

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,818
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2011, 06:36:13 PM »
Part of the issue is that we have fun with sexuality in the context of the website itself.  And it's true that with that in play some folks might stay away.  Without it some others would perhaps stay away.  And yes, I'd be lying if I said that JRE (Ray's) pictures of the St. Pete Aidswalk including the young man with the Santa cap and the little red shorts wasn't a real turn on and VERY nice to look at.

Jody :)
"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world".
 "Try to discover that you are the song that the morning brings."

Grateful Dead

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,359
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2011, 08:13:38 PM »
Tim,

Thank you for the clarification.  It was most helpful in understanding the background and the struggle you have been battling for us.  The clarity was much needed and gives me greater comfort.

I want to make clear that my earlier comments were not directed at you personally -- this one is though........  Thank you!

Hugs,
Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline anniebc

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,937
  • AM member since 2003
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2011, 09:44:51 PM »
I have been struggling with how to respond to Dachs post, I find it hard to express myelf in words, so I would like to thank Phil and Ann for doing it for me, and to thank Tim for his post, a  post that I'm sure was a difficult one to write


Also thanks Mark for this:


We can, and will, have frank and pointed discussions about sensitive issues because they come with the territory here. 

However, I am virtually certain the majority of us are familiar with human anatomy and don't need a refresher via photos or links  in the Off Topic forum.



Hugs to all who respect, admire and appreciation these forums.

Jan :-*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never knock on deaths door..ring the bell and run..he really hates that.

Offline wolfter

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,389
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2011, 10:50:27 PM »
I have been struggling with how to respond to Dachs post, I find it hard to express myelf in words, so I would like to thank Phil and Ann for doing it for me, and to thank Tim for his post, a  post that I'm sure was a difficult one to write


Also thanks Mark for this:
Hugs to all who respect, admire and appreciation these forums.

Jan :-*

I too was still processing the situation and wasn't sure how to respond so I hadn't yet.  Your words speak my sentiments on the entire issue.

Thanks!
Wolfie
productivity breeds content

Offline next2u

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,761
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2011, 11:30:50 PM »
understood and will do. im not troubled by the new edict as i work in corporate america and deal with too many conflicting and diametrically positioned ethos. until im willing to pay more i can keep the dick/pussy/ass links at bay.

money and ad revenue matters. and to be honest ive clicked on more than one of the links out of curiosity. i also do not feel that a large part of what i contribute and what i have gained from this site will be compromised by less ass/dick/pussy shots. i'm sure that the filthy geniuses that make me chuckle can still get a smile out of me without the graphics :)~.

i'm guilty and i'll clean my act up. my language, not so much, but the dirty pics in the i love porn thread will cease. it is a simple and understandable request.

i do greatly appreciate the work and dedication from the poz/aidmeds team.

best,
d
midapr07 - seroconversion
sept07 - tested poz
oct07 cd4 1013; vl 13,900; cd4% 41
feb08 cd4  694;  vl 16,160; cd4% 50.1
may08 cd4 546; vl 91,480; cd4% 32
aug08 cd4 576; vl 48,190; cd4% 40.7
dec08 cd4 559; vl 63,020; cd4% 29.4
feb09 cd4 464; vl 11,000; cd4% 26
may09 cd4 544; vl 29,710; cd4% 27.2
oct09 cd4 ...; vl 23,350; cd4% 31.6
mar10 cd4 408; vl 59,050; cd4% 31.4
aug10 cd4 328; vl 80,000; cd4% 19.3 STARTED ATRIPLA
oct10 cd4 423; vl 410 ;); cd4% 30.2
jun11 cd4 439; vl <20 ;); cd4% 33.8 <-Undetectable!
mar12 cd4 695; vl ud; cd4% 38.6
jan13 cd4 738; vl ud; cd4% 36.8
aug13 cd4 930; vl ud; cd4% 44.3
jan14 cd4 813; vl ud; cd4% 42.8
may14 cd4 783; vl *; cd4%43.5

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,699
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2011, 12:06:14 AM »


  While I read this thread there was an advertisement of some guy sticking his sword in a cat's mouth.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,205
  • Ninja Please
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2011, 08:46:16 AM »
Heh. :)

So finally the other shoe has dropped.

Now y'all might understand what motivated Peter Staley to sell this concern to Poz/S+S back in 2005.

You can't run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

You can't take the corporate shilling and still claim to be a community of activists.

Remember, this is a for profit organisation. It's not run to provide a service, but rather to provide an income to those what own it.

Taste the pain, bitches.

MtD

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #58 on: September 13, 2011, 09:29:44 AM »

Remember, this is a for profit organisation. It's not run to provide a service, but rather to provide an income to those what own it.


That doesn't make a single bit of sense. Most companies are run to provide goods and/or services - for profit.

We all get support and information here, don't we? How is that not providing a service? Over-all it's a good quality site and you just don't get that for free.

And don't forget that many hiv positive individuals work for the company that provides the SERVICES on this site. People have to make money to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables - and this place provides jobs for some of our fellow pozzies.
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,205
  • Ninja Please
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2011, 09:45:24 AM »
That doesn't make a single bit of sense. Most companies are run to provide goods and/or services - for profit.

We all get support and information here, don't we? How is that not providing a service? Over-all it's a good quality site and you just don't get that for free.

And don't forget that many hiv positive individuals work for the company that provides the SERVICES on this site. People have to make money to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables - and this place provides jobs for some of our fellow pozzies.

Oy. For fuck's sake. ::)

S+S is a for profit company. It's ultimate aim is to return a profit for those what own it. As is the aim of any business. Now, presumably, it does that by running advertising along side it's content rich sites, including this forum.

That's all I meant.

As for the pissy rant about people having to keep a roof over their pointy heads, save your tiresome indignation for someone who gives a fuck.

MtD




Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,305
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #60 on: September 13, 2011, 11:55:38 AM »
Oy. For fuck's sake. ::)

S+S is a for profit company. It's ultimate aim is to return a profit for those what own it. As is the aim of any business. Now, presumably, it does that by running advertising along side it's content rich sites, including this forum.

That's all I meant.

As for the pissy rant about people having to keep a roof over their pointy heads, save your tiresome indignation for someone who gives a fuck.

MtD






Right.  And I'm sure that most of these potential advertisers want to throw their money toward a site that has a more sanitized, family-friendly, feel good Susan G. Komen kind of vibe on it.  They want red ribbons.  They want Bono.  They want little doe eyed African children.  

They don't want a bunch of queens posting about Justin Bieber and butt sex.

The site costs money to run.  S+S wants to cover their costs and turn a penny, too.  The lion's share of folks populating these forums are - well....we ain't exactly rollin' in dough.  We need the site.  They don't.  The hat has to be held out.  The fact that Off Topic is every bit as important in the grand scheme of this support forum (as the section where we can actually interact as just regular people and not have to act like the whole of our existence is measured in blood draws and bowel movements) or that porn (and even the pictures) might actually be a very valid thread within that forum (hey...let's face it:  for a lot of us, after diagnosis porn and a good wank can become the primary - perhaps only - sexual outlet have left.  "I Love Porn"?  Damn skippy, I do.), is completely irrelevent.

The potential advertisers don't really get stuff like that, and they don't have to.  They hold the coins.

« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:57:20 AM by thunter34 »
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,205
  • Ninja Please
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #61 on: September 13, 2011, 12:20:36 PM »

Right.  And I'm sure that most of these potential advertisers want to throw their money toward a site that has a more sanitized, family-friendly, feel good Susan G. Komen kind of vibe on it.  They want red ribbons.  They want Bono.  They want little doe eyed African children. 

They don't want a bunch of queens posting about Justin Bieber and butt sex.

The site costs money to run.  S+S wants to cover their costs and turn a penny, too.  The lion's share of folks populating these forums are - well....we ain't exactly rollin' in dough.  We need the site.  They don't.  The hat has to be held out.  The fact that Off Topic is every bit as important in the grand scheme of this support forum (as the section where we can actually interact as just regular people and not have to act like the whole of our existence is measured in blood draws and bowel movements) or that porn (and even the pictures) might actually be a very valid thread within that forum (hey...let's face it:  for a lot of us, after diagnosis porn and a good wank can become the primary - perhaps only - sexual outlet have left.  "I Love Porn"?  Damn skippy, I do.), is completely irrelevent.

The potential advertisers don't really get stuff like that, and they don't have to.  They hold the coins.



None of which I dispute Timberley. I just note the obvious. Money speaks for money, the devil for his own and all that.

All I'm saying is folks shouldn't be shocked that concern for the advertiser's ruble trumps their right to post links to Raw Desert Knights.

Also, fuck Off Topic. It's been a sewer trap ever since Staley introduced back in Aught-Five. Abolish it, sez I.

MtD

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #62 on: September 13, 2011, 12:40:52 PM »
Remember, this is a for profit organisation. It's not run to provide a service, but rather to provide an income to those what own it.

Taste the pain, bitches.

MtD

So what's the solution ? To get big corporates to divert some of their funds to us bitches on this site- in the name of Corporate Social Responsibility ?  Colour me queer ::)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 12:55:19 PM by spacebarsux »
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,205
  • Ninja Please
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #63 on: September 13, 2011, 12:52:33 PM »
So what's the solution ? To get big corporates to divert some of their funds to this site in the name of Corporate Social Responsibility ?  ::)

Solution? I'm not offering a solution. Fuck, I don't think there's a problem.

I'm merely making a waspish observation about How Things Are.

Fuck-the-skull-of-Jesus, you queers need to lighten up.

MtD

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,900
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #64 on: September 13, 2011, 01:08:49 PM »
This is an outrage! It's Piss Christ 2.0!
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline Theyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,488
  • Current ambition. Walk the Dog .
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #65 on: September 13, 2011, 01:50:10 PM »
This is an outrage! It's Piss Christ 2.0!
Erect the barricades then decorate them ✄✄!!!
"If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people ."  Tony Benn

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,100
  • 1DPxR156NnouErf4f51CsCMubMYw84j5Kv
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #66 on: September 13, 2011, 02:03:00 PM »
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 24,399
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #67 on: September 13, 2011, 02:47:44 PM »
This thread has taken a turn south and all to no good purpose. Matty, you've had your say and thrown a few cursey grenades. Your position is duly noted. Personally I'll also say that repeated use of the f word seems to me to be lazy and a dead end form of expression. Your capacity to communicate with intelligence and wit is well known. You can do better than obscene flaming. 

If there is anymore to be said, let's not have this conversation degenerate any further from you or anyone else.

This maybe a schoolmarmish thing to say, but then again it seems to bear saying: it seems to me that Tim is reiterating that with freedom comes responsibility.

Otherwise things fall apart. Maybe they'll always fall apart anyway in this life, but we don't need to contribute to that (inevitable) happening.

Playing shoolmarm/cop is not a favorite role of mine, but I will do it if I have to.





« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 03:03:54 PM by Andy Velez »
Andy Velez

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,699
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #68 on: September 13, 2011, 03:20:48 PM »


  I wonder if the dance videos I use to post are still allowed....
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,104
  • "Butterflies are free."
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #69 on: September 13, 2011, 05:04:52 PM »


Willy,

I love the animated domagiggywhatchamacallit!  It's a mind teaser, at least for me.

Can I take a stab at it's context?

How about:

"This threaded discussion brings to mind an elephant jumping on a trampoline. Easy to imagine but difficult to do."

I'll now go the conference room and await my cognitive test results.    :D
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 05:07:23 PM by OneTampa »
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,501
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #70 on: September 13, 2011, 05:21:16 PM »
How about:

"This threaded discussion brings to mind an elephant jumping on a trampoline. Easy to imagine but difficult to do."

Or:

"This thread discussion brings to mind an elephant jumping on a trampoline. Hard to imagine, but with enough effort, anything is possible."

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,100
  • 1DPxR156NnouErf4f51CsCMubMYw84j5Kv
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #71 on: September 13, 2011, 06:20:01 PM »
Or:

"This thread discussion brings to mind an elephant jumping on a trampoline. Hard to imagine, but with enough effort, anything is possible."

I'm not sure about any meaning.... All I know is this thread desperately needed an "Elephant on a Trampoline" GIF
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,119
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #72 on: September 13, 2011, 09:01:16 PM »
This thread has taken a turn south and all to no good purpose. Matty, you've had your say and thrown a few cursey grenades. Your position is duly noted. Personally I'll also say that repeated use of the f word seems to me to be lazy and a dead end form of expression. Your capacity to communicate with intelligence and wit is well known. You can do better than obscene flaming.  

If there is anymore to be said, let's not have this conversation degenerate any further from you or anyone else.

This maybe a schoolmarmish thing to say, but then again it seems to bear saying: it seems to me that Tim is reiterating that with freedom comes responsibility.

Otherwise things fall apart. Maybe they'll always fall apart anyway in this life, but we don't need to contribute to that (inevitable) happening.

Playing shoolmarm/cop is not a favorite role of mine, but I will do it if I have to.


Andy, all due respect, I think part of the problem here is the vagueness of the "edict."

Is it the "F" word, the "N" word, porn sites, all of the above? Madonna post plastic surgery pictures? What is it that has these (potential) advertisers up in arms?

It's like walking on egg shells around here.

Just sayin'

PS: Miss P, what's Piss Christ? I'm too young to know.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 09:17:36 PM by Inchlingblue »

Offline NycJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 236
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2011, 09:46:19 PM »
Tim, Andy, Ann, Jan, etc,

This site rocks.  Most informative site on the net for HIV, a great way to network with others,  and learn from each others experiences.

What Tim is requesting is not rocket science nor is it too much to ask.  We all know what is and isn't appropriate.  We are all big boys and girls.  We can always pm each other or go to porn sites etc.  Every site has it's own purpose.  If you need a list of specific rules..lol, well I don't know what to say. 

Joe


Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,359
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2011, 09:53:00 PM »
Andy, all due respect, I think part of the problem here is the vagueness of the "edict."

Is it the "F" word, the "N" word, porn sites, all of the above? Madonna post plastic surgery pictures? What is it that has these (potential) advertisers up in arms?

It's like walking on egg shells around here.

Just sayin'

PS: Miss P, what's Piss Christ? I'm too young to know.

Go back and read Tim's post in this thread (#38) -- he clarifies his original post here.

Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Since2005

  • Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2011, 12:42:12 AM »
I am a very new member and I hope its okay to make comments, at least, some of you would get an idea about what newer members think about forums. I want to start by saying that the impact the forums community has on me is invaluable. I have been using this site little over a month only and it's been terrific. I could honestly say form my personal experiences that others have personally helped me tremendously and I am glad and lucky to have this support as a newbie. These kinds of supports are always needed and are very helpful for anyone.

I wanted to say after reading the thread, it seems like that conclusion and boundaries have been set and we (speaking for myself and the majority hopefully) agreed. I myself also counter played few things on my head to draw a line between the freedom of expressions and the concept of being able to be dealt with others who may or may not have the ability to control things about forum and eventually lose it all (I meant the off topic forum). What a relief! Everyone thanked moderators (Andy and Ann) and Tim (Sorry not sure about the title but fair enough to say who in charge to make decisions, one of which we were discussing earlier).

I, of course, do realize and agree as a new member and what have I learned form other threads in the forums and the contribution that moderators (Ann and Andy and others) have been making is huge. Tim, as everyone agreed on the comments that we read earlier on from the AIDSMED forum is doing a great job keep it running and everyone is happy under his supervision and support that we talked about.

I would also wanted thank all the LTS/members who have been contributing to the forums for years and years. The amount of time they have put in is also invaluable. I personally believe that we needed this thread very much. So, moderators and forum members are able to express their opinions. I know it was hard for Tim as he indicated that he was personally taken back but if we look at the result and the outcome turned out to be great. I am sorry, Tim, you felt that way but I am glad it happened as majority, if not everyone, would agree we have come to a conclusion, which was very much needed as it cleared the confusion, helped Tim to set up the guidelines and the communication is very much clearer. I am sure that's what you wanted at the end. So, I wanted to thank the person who started the thread, as we also needed someone like him sometimes to open up discussions to clear up the dirty air that we don't want to poison ourselves with. So, many thanks goes to members who have participated and special thanks goes to OP, Dachshund, for not being afraid to speak up and at the end made most of us happy and it reflected when members expressed comments to Tim and the other moderators.

P.S. This is what I wrote last night. I did not post it till now and I see things have changed a bit. I am keeping my thoughts now just like the last night. For one reason, I would rather have this site and follow some guidelines (trust me that's not that hard, please read that once.. twice.. and I am pretty sure we will get used to it soon)! what has been said, to me, I got it and I also understand there is a rope hanging but hey there is always something hanging on our head anyways. So, I rather have this 'Off Topic Forum' going rather than not having it at all.

Edited to add: To make my point clearer, I am not saying porn, sexually explicit pics/stuff are bad things to share and whoever shared/posted are in the wrong (why would I say that? As I see 'those' in a way of  expressing my sexuality and exercising my freedom for things that I feel common or have fun to share with etc. not to mention I kinda like that..). However, if I have to outweigh my deal, l will rather have this 'off topic' forum going because the way I see it is to have the forum is more beneficial to our members.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 06:44:22 PM by Since2005 »

Offline ademas

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,151
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #76 on: September 14, 2011, 02:02:50 AM »
sounds like we've offended some right-leaning, corporate big shots, most of whom probably vote against queers in every election. 

Offline edfu

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,084
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #77 on: September 14, 2011, 04:47:29 AM »
PS: Miss P, what's Piss Christ? I'm too young to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Is it art?  Is it blasphemy?  Is it pornography?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,119
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #78 on: September 14, 2011, 08:30:40 AM »
Go back and read Tim's post in this thread (#38) -- he clarifies his original post here.



I missed that.  I appreciate Tim's very reasonable and well-written response. He should know he's very appreciated around here.

Offline austinguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #79 on: September 14, 2011, 11:17:37 AM »
I can identify with some of what Since2005 has said. Since my diagnosis I have used these forums to help me understand myself as someone living with HIV. I can not even express how important reading others experiences has helped calm my mind and helped warm my soul. I feel it would be a bad thing if the forums were to go away. For me personally having to follow a couple of guidelines would not be a big deal to be able to continue to participate in this amazing community.

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2011, 11:22:02 AM »
I want to start by saying that the impact the forums community has on me its valueless.

To be helpful to anyone skim-reading and more important to Since for his future writing (as we do aim to educate in the Forums)....the intended word choice was 'invaluable' rather than 'valueless'.

Offline Since2005

  • Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #81 on: September 14, 2011, 02:32:29 PM »
Thanks EM. Very good catch! I appreciate that and I edited to correct that...

Invaluable - Exactly!
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 02:38:53 PM by Since2005 »

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2011, 03:32:05 PM »
You're welcome. As you're apparently keen on editing, then you'll wanna get the second one, too.

"I would also wanted thank all the LTS/ older members who have been contributing for years and years. The amount of time they have put in is also valueless. "

Offline Since2005

  • Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2011, 06:34:49 PM »
OMG ...............
Hope I did not upset anyone by now already.. please don't be mad :)
Yes LTS and others who have been contributing to the forum for years and years - YOU ARE INVALUABLE

I can identify with some of what Since2005 has said. Since my diagnosis I have used these forums to help me understand myself as someone living with HIV. I cannot even express how important reading others experiences has helped calm my mind and helped warm my soul. I feel it would be a bad thing if the forums were to go away. For me personally having to follow a couple of guidelines would not be a big deal to be able to continue to participate in this amazing community.

Thanks for sharing Austin. Just to clarify here we are only talking about the ‘off topic’ forum. If members continue to post sexually explicit materials then ONLY as members were saying ‘off topic’ forum may go away as this forum seems to be one that “They” are talking about. In a way, I kinda feel bad not having the freedom to post whatever I want and not be able to feel liberated but  life is all about do what is best for you. So, if I have to pick one, I would vote to keep the off topic forum and follow some guidelines. I would still be able talk about 'other things' that are important to me.  Okay, I have made my point. ( more than once).. No more.. Peace out everyone!!
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 06:40:17 PM by Since2005 »

Offline Jablair09

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2011, 07:35:26 PM »
If you really stop and think about it guys/gals this site was NOT established to link to PORN or any other 'off-color' subjects. It's a forum to help those of us living with HIV...why not just keep it to the point. I don't see what the big deal is. I mean I don't agree with the censureship but they offer these forums for FREE and they aren't FREE to the site owner(s)...they have to be paid for somehow...even if the sources of that revenue are not 'user-friendly'. Just be cordial and keep it clean. Not only does it resolve the issue but it shows that you have you respect, not only for yourself, but for the others here that may not WANT to hear and/or see those types of comments, links, pics, etc. It's quite simply called COMMON COURTEOUSY...act here the way that you would in public...it IS a PUBLIC forum...FYI..I'm not 'calling anyone out', simply stating my opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone.

Offline Dennis

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #85 on: September 15, 2011, 10:42:56 AM »
As far as posting sexually explicit material, let us not forget that there may be minors who are HIV+ who visit this site, as well as their family members. 

We are aslo aware that there are students who are not HIV+ who frequent this site as part of their research.

Dennis

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,699
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #86 on: September 15, 2011, 10:55:29 AM »
As far as posting sexually explicit material, let us not forget that there may be minors who are HIV+ who visit this site, as well as their family members. 

We are aslo aware that there are students who are not HIV+ who frequent this site as part of their research.

Dennis

They need to get with it then, I knew what dick and pussy was when I was in the third grade.  Anyone with a sister 13 years older who doesn't have a bedroom door closed should know this stuff.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #87 on: September 15, 2011, 11:02:47 AM »
They need to get with it then, I knew what dick and pussy was when I was in the third grade.  Anyone with a sister 13 years older who doesn't have a bedroom door closed should know this stuff.

Oh just make this web-site GP-13 and get it over with  ::)
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #88 on: September 15, 2011, 01:53:20 PM »
Oh just make this web-site GP-13 and get it over with  ::)

Hey Den,

So, clue us in...is there a new code GP-13? -- and is it Generally Pornographic ? Guardedly Pornographic?
or Gently Pornographic?

Just messin' w/u.
Em

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #89 on: September 15, 2011, 01:58:35 PM »
Hey Den,

So, clue us in...is there a new code GP-13? -- and is it Generally Pornographic ? Guardedly Pornographic?
or Gently Pornographic?

Just messin' w/u.
Em

 :D I was referring to what age group this web-site is appropriate for. The ratings are G,PG, PG-13, R ,NC-17 and X. G is for children. PG means Parental Guidance.. PG-13, R, NC-17 and X are for mature audiences. I'm sure TIM will come up with something along those lines that the Advertisers and all can agree with  ;)
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline Dennis

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #90 on: September 15, 2011, 02:25:03 PM »
Perhaps having members have to log in to view the "off topic forum" with an age restriction.  This way, members can still feel free to practice their freedom of speech and post whatever they feel is appropriate. The rest of the forums would remain viewable to anyone.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #91 on: September 15, 2011, 03:01:01 PM »
A little more discretion doesn't trouble me, but then I edit out all the good bits before I post anyway.

I'm rather puzzled though, in comparing the problem to the proposed solution.  It seems that potential advertisers are troubled by the fact that several of the top threads in the forums are about or feature links to porn.  Those threads are relatively old, and don't have many recent posts.  But they are/were very popular and are likely to remain high in the ratings for a long time.  Seems to me you will only fix "the problem" if you eliminate those old threads.  The proposed solution doesn't really address that problem it only prevents new offending threads from growing.  Perhaps off topic threads should periodically expire?

I am troubled by the suggestion of personal attacks on the ethics or postings of Tim Horn.  Internet postings are generally pretty cold, since they lack the warmth of intonation, vocal register or touch and it is always possible to take away the wrong impression from a single posting.  But it is impossible to read Mr. Horn's collected postings and come away with any impression other than that he cares deeply about people living with HIV and the people who post on this site. 

Finally, it is unclear to me what the financial ownership structure of the site has to do with the issue of potential advertisers being repulsed by a portion of its content.  If the site were not-for-profit and looking for advertisers to support the forums the same issues would arise.
5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #92 on: September 15, 2011, 03:39:03 PM »
Perhaps having members have to log in to view the "off topic forum" with an age restriction.  This way, members can still feel free to practice their freedom of speech and post whatever they feel is appropriate. The rest of the forums would remain viewable to anyone.

I don't understand this. So it would be ok for a 16 year old to ask questions about sucking cock in the AM I Forum but can't view porno here ?

There are plenty of other places on the internet (and elsewhere) to view porno, and it's not really that big a deal if we refrain from pasting porno links here. I can't speak for anyone else but that's not why I come here and such a rule is barely even a restriction to me.

I agree with everyone about how these forums have been and still are most invaluable to me and have become an indispensable part of my routine.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 03:54:30 PM by spacebarsux »
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline Dennis

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #93 on: September 15, 2011, 04:18:48 PM »
I don't understand this. So it would be ok for a 16 year old to ask questions about sucking cock in the AM I Forum but can't view porno here ? ...

Not every minor who visits this site acquires HIV the way you mentioned above.  When I think about the porn in these forums I think about a very young girl who is HIV+ and graced us with her prescense at AMG Boston with her mother. It's young people, like herself, I think about who should not be subjected to such material.

But I agree with your point.  This isn't the first place I come to view porn either.  There are other sites for that which I'm sure we can all find for ourselves without anyone's help here.  Seeing it here dosn't bother. But I can see how it could be an issue.

Anyway, it was just a suggestion; a possible solution to what is apparently a problem.

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,501
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #94 on: September 15, 2011, 04:45:44 PM »
I am troubled by the suggestion of personal attacks on the ethics or postings of Tim Horn.  Internet postings are generally pretty cold, since they lack the warmth of intonation, vocal register or touch and it is always possible to take away the wrong impression from a single posting.  But it is impossible to read Mr. Horn's collected postings and come away with any impression other than that he cares deeply about people living with HIV and the people who post on this site. 

In my decade of being on these forums, I have never been more disappointed than by the comments, attacking the character of Tim Horn. I have known Tim since I joined these forums and there is no one, bar none, who has done more for these forums than Tim. Unlike many of us, Tim spends his days in the “real” world, juggling his many roles and passions. I can only imagine the pain that Tim may feel, about this over reaction to a very reasonable request, on his part, to keep these forums up and running.  AIDSmeds is part of this man’s very fiber and for anyone to doubt his commitment to both these forums and the HIV community is a moral failure of the highest order.

If you think you can run these forums, while keeping them funded, in a better fashion, then step up. Otherwise, realize that without people like Tim Horn, these forums would not exist at all.

He’s not asking for anything for himself. He’s asking for our help to keep the forums running.

Ignoring his request will only hurt us.

Joe

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #95 on: September 15, 2011, 05:05:27 PM »
:D I was referring to what age group this web-site is appropriate for. The ratings are G,PG, PG-13, R ,NC-17 and X. G is for children. PG means Parental Guidance.. PG-13, R, NC-17 and X are for mature audiences. I'm sure TIM will come up with something along those lines that the Advertisers and all can agree with  ;)

Den -- I get it, trust me, totally get it. You'd typed GP (not PG) so I capped on that and that's why I wrote I was messin' w/u. Em

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,359
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2011, 05:10:44 PM »
Honestly, I do not recall reading a thing in this thread that attacked Tim.  
I know that my earlier posts were not aimed at Tim, but at the message -- and I might add, the vagueness that surrounded it initially.  My comments would have been the same regardless of who posted the original message.  

It wasn't about the messenger, it was about the message.  

I have not, and would not, ever question Tim's dedication to these forums and its members.  Once the vagueness was lifted, I was more at ease with the message and do not find it unreasonable.

I thought we had moved beyond this the other day -- but somehow this is back up here today.  I think it's time to put this to bed.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #97 on: September 15, 2011, 05:45:45 PM »
Den -- I get it, trust me, totally get it. You'd typed GP (not PG) so I capped on that and that's why I wrote I was messin' w/u. Em

I know you did EM, please forgive my dyslexia, it creeps up on me @ times  :D
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #98 on: September 15, 2011, 11:02:07 PM »
I know you did EM, please forgive my dyslexia, it creeps up on me @ times  :D


No reason for forgiveness as my disorder is dyseditoriahumorosis.

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #99 on: September 16, 2011, 07:02:22 AM »
I think we can pretty much wrap this thread up.

I appreciate everything that's been written here, the supportive and the critical, and am not reading that anyone sees this as a radical shift in posting etiquette. And for what it's worth, I don't take anything written above as attempted character assassination, but rather questions about my (and Smart + Strong's) motives and the context of the vague and closed-to-conversation "edict" posted on September 9th (a mistake I will never make again). Of course some of it hurt, at least initially -- if it didn't, then I probably shouldn't be doing this job at all.

Thanks everyone.

Tim

 

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.