Re: You should be better than this.

I am willing to drop this here and I even don't care who has the last word. However, it is important to me that the facts are correct and that falsehoods are not pinned to me unfairly. As even though I have held you, your site, and the mods feet to the fire (for issues beyond your rules that are inconsistent and illogical), I have always been fair in my statements. ...discuss the situation with either the acting moderator who handled the removal or myself prior to public. You made no effort to do this. and ...your decision to rob us of any opportunity to resolve this privately. This is very much incorrect. If you recheck the PMs, like I have, you will see that I have had extensive offline conversations with the mods regarding these takedowns. Additionally, every single takedown was noticed by me via a PM from a mod, NOT a missing post with no PM from a mod. This was the mods communicating offline and me responding offline. I had even tried to have very productive conversations and every single one (with exception of a PM from the Mod Mgr fully and intelligently describing rationale for one post (USENET mention), all others were brief and basically of a dismissive tone, especially some of yours which clearly were coming from what I would call a "fear drunk" text. I only went public on the board when members of the clique started attacking me there with mischaracterizations e.g. "why are you so upset about just one post?" and "You're making a mountain out of a molehill" and "It strikes me that those with the most inflexible opinions are generally the most thin-skinned." even including a gif of one of the Olsen twins dramatically fainting. So where the double standard lies is that you wish that I remain private on all communication on THESE takedowns, yet the clique can have a field day attacking me publicly. Additionally, You wish all users to understand and follow your set rules. Almost all replies in support of me and against me have agreed that they cannot make sense of how the rules are applied. They claim, "well sometimes they get nuked and you don't know why, it's just the way it is". My question is if you want more people to understand your rationale for your takedowns, then why do you want these discussions to be private? That doesn't add up. I would think you would want to say, This X post had Y problem and we took it down for Z. Then all users would have a better understanding as to how to post going forward. ...unnecessary attacks and the aggression against bl12 and its staff... Again, like I said, I have been fair and calm, however NOT a pushover. If I was viewed as being unfair, attacking, or showing aggression, I wouldn't have received sympathy and support publicly on the board and calls to not leave. ...you went nuclear from the start. Again, I would check your facts. The femboy photo was NOT my first takedown. This issue started long before and privately in PMs. ...without leaving any opportunity for the acting moderator to register and respond to your private comments. Like I stated, I learned about ALL of my takedowns from Mod PMs directly to me. When I would login, I would always FIRST go to PMs which blink red in the header bar. Then I would read the feedback from the mod, and then I would check the thread for what was removed, if not the entire thread nuked. This course of action by definition started with the Mod responding to me directly. The moderation action isn't being reversed. I never asked anyone for any reversal of any takedown. I simply always questioned the logic, which to this day still does not make sense to most users. They have simply accepted that they could one day post a photo of a fully-clothed boy with long pants and long sleeves and no obvious intentional posing, feeding a cat, and then somehow it gets taken down because the act of feeding a cat could be taken by LEO as intentional interaction with a "meow". While at the same time, on the next thread over someone posted a pic of a boy in a folding chair with loose shorts, spread legs, while suggestively eating a sausage and at an angle that is considered "upshort" (seeing parts of untanned inner thigh that normally would be covered. (This is still a live photo on bl12). Host Lookup/WhoIs You are claiming that you want this discussion quashed, yet you keep bring it up. I have been accommodating to your wishes to not give details in these discussions, even after your vitriolic PMs to me, where a better course of action would've been to take a beat before unloading on me. But that is OK. I can take it and since, I have not discussed any details. However, Your steps that you outlined are much more cumbersome than visiting one of the many free public sites that provide the public data which in itself is harmless as it IS public. Let me put this another way. It's like seeing the part of the public McDonalds sign that says "2 Billion Served", then walking inside and telling the manager, "wow, you serve 2 billion people". Then the manager freaking out saying "how did you get this information?", "You must have ill intent because you know this", "I command you to no longer look at our sign and don't talk about it to others publicly." It is a bit hyperbolic. If you are concerned about LEO or hacker antis knowing how to do a simple host look up, then I can't help you as they are FAR more skilled than I am in this area. As you are starting to clue into, again, my rationale was in wanting to know which legal framework you were bound by in order to make sense of the hypersensitivity on takedowns. That's ALL! Period! That being said, I have already told you that your current situation is very problematic as instead of a preferred jurisdiction of looking at prima-facie elements of a photo like nudity or suggestive posing, the reality is that every photo on your site is a liability because it is tied to the audience viewing them as sexual. That is all it takes. An Ikea catalog of a fully clothed boy, with no suggestive posing, can be fine for Ikea, but on a BL site in a problematic jurisdiction, only need be viewed as sexual and therefore problematic. So "flying under the radar and hoping that you are "too boring" for them in reality means you are at risk. relateableguy registered specifically to attack bl12 with you. This is being a bit hyperbolic. You are not under attack. It is just an unsatisfied customer who shared a sentiment with another. This is not even getting close to hurting the overall BL wider community. These few posts have already been forgotten as they are falling down the board. The BL community doesn't revolve around bl12. Frankly, you don't have the numbers for that claim. I am disappointed in you because I expected better than this shitshow because of a single damn picture. I'm not sure how many times I need to mention it over and over, but here goes once more with feeling as they say in the theatre. THIS. WAS. NOT. JUST. ONE. POST. To add depth, lets discuss another one. Gaspard Chante video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUcojZl9NtA&list=RDqUcojZl9NtA&start_radio=1 This was totally nuked, yet the mod complaint was the comments were crossing the line into intent. And for this I agree on that there was one comment that was out of line and THAT COMMENT should've been removed, NOT the entire thread. This topic was about how young he looked for being 15 years old during the filming of this video. It was mentioned that the age of consent was in fact 15 in France, where Gaspard is from. Someone had asked if it were legal to go there and GENERALLY have sex with a 15yo. I replied NOT FOR AMERICANS citing the PROTECT ACT. which specifically states that this is illegal. However, for NON-Americans (French, who are NOT American Citizens), In France, 15 is the AoC. The fact of this legality has ZERO to do with US laws and is not any concern of the US what one French person does legally with another French person, In France. This is equivalent of one person talking with another person about gay (adult-adult) sex in the USA vs Iran. And one person says I can have gay sex in the USA, can I have gay sex in Iran, and the other person saying that they might throw you off a building blindfolded. These are philosophical discussions. No one is racing out to track down Gaspard. How would that even be possible? This did NOT show intent as the distinction was clearly defined in the discussion. Legal for French and illegal for Americans. This is the same as discussing that it is illegal for this to happen in America. It is setting the boundary and therefore NOT intentional. So, sure, you have every right to be overly cautious and take it down on your site. I am just looking at your claims. You claimed that it was illegal as it showed intent. That is incorrect. I would've accepted the answer of "we are just being overly cautious here". But there has always been a certain level of arrogance, which I can handle, but it also doesn't mean I needed to stick around for it either. I am not interested in discussing this further with you, because you have made clear you are unwilling to consider or engage in any form of constructive conversation on this matter. 1. I stated that I am willing to drop it if you are, as long as the facts are correct and not placing non-factual statements on me. 2. I have only been trying to calmly discuss these matters with you, on BC, on bl12, and in PM. You have shown to be unnecessarily uncalm in our discussion and also have failed to state facts correctly. So whenever you are willing to drop the discussion and drop the beef, as long as there are not more untrue statements, I am ready to as well. The ball is in your court.