censorship on this board – please explain

13»

Comments

  • DixieN
    DixieN Posts: 351
    Personally, I think that this board has gotten far more reasonable as time has gone on. They censor some stuff for whatever reason, but in days gone by you couldn't really say anything un-rah-rah about the band without facing umbrage. In the past, I wouldn't come here for fear of puking, that's how crazy I thought it was. Now, I'm pretty much happy with the place. I think they do a pretty good job of balancing everyone's interests.
  • blondieblue227
    blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    aNiMaL - i like that. :)

    __________________

    and yes i know censorship wasn't really the best word to use, but i knew it would catch people's eyes. ;)

    ________________

    just for the record i'm not a fan that would bug pj by asking them to release this and that.
    just thought i saw a double standard happening. But it wasn’t the case.
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • Biggest Wave
    Biggest Wave Posts: 686
    Pegasus wrote:
    I think picture/avatar has more to do with bandwidth..but yeah, avatars would be nice

    It would only use their bandwidth if the posted pictures were hosted on their server. Being that we don't have access to their server it would use none (zero) of their bandwidth. Avatars would more than likely be hosted on their server, but they can be limited to a very small size. Besides, most hosting companies offer unlimited BW nowadays anyway. I've seen some people say it's for the dial-up people; it would take too long for the pages to load for people using dial-up. I say fuck the dial-up people. Most of the internet is now geared for high speed access and if you're still using dial-up you might as well shut the computer down and us it as a door-stop because that's pretty much all it's good for without high speed access.
  • markymark550
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,224
    The no picture thing probably has to do with people posting inappropriate pictures. It's inevitable that someone (some people) would post something objectionable. I mean really....38,000+ members....someone is bound to post something graphically violent or sexual. Seeing as anyone of any age can view threads, the mods don't have to risk dealing with the headache of exposing some 10 year old to some graphic picture if they don't allow pictures to be posted. I don't know about the legality of it, but I believe they could be held accountable for the inappropriate pictures.

    The avatars could have to do with bandwidth and server space. Avatars can be on the host server or can be a stored link that is called much like a picture would be called in a post. If they would store an avatar on their own server, then that would take up their storage space and use their bandwidth. It would be their prerogative to allow or deny that from happening. Also, they would have to monitor avatar pictures as closely as regular pictures because you never know what someone is going to come up with.

    I think they just took a pre-emptive strike on having to deal with too much objectionable content and I can't say that I really blame them for it.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Biggest Wave wrote:
    This is one of the reasons that I spend most of my time at a board with no restrictions. I mean come on, you can't even post pictures or have avatars here. What kinda crap is that? This is 2008, not 1998.


    Good God I hope they don't add avatars. If the purpose of the message board is the discussion of topics related to Pearl Jam, then they add nothing to the discussion (I think the signatures are enough). Personally I think adding avatars is one step away from a message board where most of the messages are "omg, I luv eddie, hez soooo hawt !!!!!!".
  • Child Of The 90s
    Child Of The 90s Posts: 526
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Good God I hope they don't add avatars. If the purpose of the message board is the discussion of topics related to Pearl Jam, then they add nothing to the discussion (I think the signatures are enough). Personally I think adding avatars is one step away from a message board where most of the messages are "omg, I luv eddie, hez soooo hawt !!!!!!".
    I 100% agree
  • EquallyWorthless
    EquallyWorthless Posts: 3,993
    markymark550 wrote:
    It's a privately owned message board and the owners/moderators can choose to censor whoever they want for whatever reason they want without having to give explanation. If they feel someone has gone beyond the limits of what they allow, they should be able to lock/delete threads and ban users.


    These are the terms you agreed to when you signed up, if you don't like it well deal with it because thats the way it is.
    {if (work != 0) {
    work = work + 1;
    sleep = sleep - work * 10;}
    else if (work >= 0) {
    reality.equals(false);
    work = work +1;
    }system("pause");
    return 0;}
  • Pegasus
    Pegasus Posts: 3,754
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Good God I hope they don't add avatars. If the purpose of the message board is the discussion of topics related to Pearl Jam, then they add nothing to the discussion (I think the signatures are enough). Personally I think adding avatars is one step away from a message board where most of the messages are "omg, I luv eddie, hez soooo hawt !!!!!!".
    RM has avatars and it's about the opposite direction to that compare to here!

    Avatars put 'a face' on a poster the way just a name can't for many, especially as there are many similar names here.

    Avatars could be moderated (they were on Oink, I got told off for not having a cutesy one :rolleyes), and those that don't like them or that have dial-up can switch them off in the settings.
  • ECM
    ECM Posts: 1,687
    Pegasus wrote:
    RM has avatars and it's about the opposite direction to that compare to here!

    Avatars put 'a face' on a poster the way just a name can't for many, especially as there are many similar names here.

    Avatars could be moderated (they were on Oink, I got told off for not having a cutesy one :rolleyes), and those that don't like them or that have dial-up can switch them off in the settings.

    I hate Rats ;)
    wishlistfoundation.org
  • Pegasus
    Pegasus Posts: 3,754
    Evil Closet Monkey wrote:
    I hate Rats ;)
    what name are you hiding under so I can check if you're doing better? :p
  • markymark550
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,224
    EquallyWorthless wrote:
    These are the terms you agreed to when you signed up, if you don't like it well deal with it because thats the way it is.
    Or go to another message board. Or better yet, start your own. They aren't too expensive and you would have full control...
  • this is not for you
    this is not for you Posts: 240
    seriously man, someone should just put the self pollution radio vid up again, must take a while before the 10c notice

    put it under a dif name
  • Lizard
    Lizard So Cal Posts: 12,091
    I think they are Pod-Mods
    or Mod--Pods
    So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream
    Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
  • blondieblue227
    blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    4Powers20 wrote:
    and this thread will be deleted.


    :p it hasn't yet. i'd just like to point that out. :p
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • share
    share Posts: 551
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Good God I hope they don't add avatars. If the purpose of the message board is the discussion of topics related to Pearl Jam, then they add nothing to the discussion (I think the signatures are enough). Personally I think adding avatars is one step away from a message board where most of the messages are "omg, I luv eddie, hez soooo hawt !!!!!!".

    Just confine them to the "pictures of how hot Ed is" threads.
    Not that anyone here would create or contribute to such a thread.
    we're all sentient snowflakes
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I'm a number that doesn't count
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    the nothing ventured - the nothing feigned
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    aNiMaL wrote:
    This just seems like one of the instances when someone was just looking for the opportunity to use the term "corporate" and "big business" when referring to Pearl Jam. Some people use that and think it means something, and/or think they are getting a rise out of people or enlightening them on something they didn't know. Save it.

    Is Pearl Jam most likely a Corporation, probably. And all that means is that the entity Pearl Jam is financially separate from the members individual financial situation. Are they publicly traded, nope. Do they buy and sell companies, nope. Are they a Fortune 500 company, nope. Are they "big business," nope.

    Just because something is a corporation, doesn't automatically make them bad. In PJ's case, the only share holders would be the band members. There is no one else to answer to. No board of directors or trustees. Just a the band.

    There are two Pearl Jam entities registered with the State of Washington: Pearl Jam Touring, Inc., and Pearl Jam, LLC. One's a corporation and the other is a limited liability company:

    http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/search_results.aspx?search_type=simple&criteria=all&name_type=starts_with&name=pearl+jam&ubi=

    And, there was actually a Pearl Jam, Inc. registered with the California Secretary of State, too, but it has "merged out," whatever that means:

    http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1697498

    And, while I agree with you that not all corporations are bad and that the corporate entities involved here are "closely held" (not publicly traded), I'd posit that Pearl Jam is most definitely some form of "big business." While they may not be as "big business" as other big businesses, their game is no small cookies. For example, in '03 they raked in $29.1 million in tour revenue alone:

    http://www.livedaily.com/news/5928.html

    Edit: One more thing - Pearl Jam Touring, Inc. is actually incorporated in Nevada. Why? Nevada has no corporate income tax and no tax on corporate shares. Sounds like incorporating in Nevada was a money-making, big business decision to me.

    http://sos.state.nv.us/business/comm_rec/whyinc.asp

    Edit 2: Just to clarify, I have no problem with corporations in general or making money in general. I'm just pointing out the above information for information's sake.

Categories