Originally posted by RussAye, that's the rub. Any thread can be turned nasty (especially by the homophobic posters) so a discussion about sex is likely to be hijacked very quickly.
Nothing wrong with a healthy conversation about sex, right? Well, unsurprisingly, by the time I caught up with the thread, one thing lead to another, and a VERY offensive joke has been
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Not a chance.
you are deleting an entire 3 year age group from the site, a lot of those kids are subscribers, meaning that the site would be losing money
I'd be surprised if more than 5% of the subscribers are in the 13-16 age group.
Russ, any stats? Can you do a quick SQL maybe?
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm delighted this argument has been lost S-Man.
I'm so sick of this 13 year old minimum age rubbish. I suggest we raise the age to 16 so that we can talk about subjects like sex without fear of imbecilic moderation due to alerts from gigantic mammaries who think we're polluting the minds of the young.
Amend to ToS!
As others have said if you want to discuss sex there are one or 2 other sites (🙄 on the internet that are more appropriate to it. Grow up.
Originally posted by malingaAs I pointed out, that objection is clearly invalid. The argument has not been lost, Russ has just said no to the idea. Run along now and get back to your chess, there's a good boy.
I'm delighted this argument has been lost S-Man.
As others have said if you want to discuss sex there are one or 2 other sites (🙄 on the internet that are more appropriate to it. Grow up.
You said: As I pointed out, that objection is clearly invalid
The objection to discussions about sex is clearly a valid one. There are minors on the site and therefore discussions of a sexual nature are unwelcome. Very valid point that. Your spacetravel thing is laughable.
You said: The argument has not been lost, Russ has just said no to the idea.
You presented an idea to the forum. The Admin rejected that idea. You lost.
...and get back to your chess,
It is a chess site so I will get back to chess. Good suggestion. I enjoy it. Perhaps you should take your own advice and stop worrying about not being able to discuss your sexual preferences and start worrying about your games.
Run along now...there's a good boy
Whenever your views are disagreed with you like to insult. I am not a boy that you can tell to 'run along'. I will post my thoughts should I wish to do so.
Only one other user can compete with you for arrogance and petulance. That is quite an achievement. Well done.
Originally posted by malingaYou see that's why I come across as arrogant, when an argument is made that is not founded on the same premises as the reply it is supposed to be rebutting, it annoys me.
You said: As I pointed out, that objection is clearly invalid
The objection to discussions about sex is clearly a valid one. There are minors on the site and therefore discussions of a sexual nature are unwelcome. Very valid point that. Your spacetravel thing is laughable.
You said: The argument has not been lost, Russ has just said no to the idea.
er can compete with you for arrogance and petulance. That is quite an achievement. Well done.
Lets try again shall we?
1) I suggest raising the age limit on the forums so we can talk about subects like sex, because there are minors on this site. - So your first point is mute.
2) Raven offered the point that this is a chess site and we should not discuss sex because of that reason. - I pointed out that there are a number of other subjects which we do talk about so his objection on the grounds of chess as a subject (and your point about the space travel post being laughable) is obsolete.
3) Raven replies with a point about NSFW which he had not mentioned before and at this point I begin to get annoyed because I am arguing with someone who fails to form an argument before posting it. I get enough of that crap in spirituality - I point out that discussing sex and discussing material that is NSFW are not homogenous.
4) My idea and the argument that followed are not the same thing. When you say I've lost the argument you are referring to russ turning down the idea. The argument in the thread is still ongoing.
5) I'm not here for the chess, I wouldn't stop anyone from playing chess in anyway, my argument is directed at the forums only. Plenty of people are here for the forums alone, as is their want so that point of yours is, well, pointless.
6) I don't insult people I disagree with, I insult people who are willfully idiotic, or whose first post in a thread includes the words 'grow up'. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.
7) Xanthos is way more arrogant than I am, but I thank you for your kind words; clearly I have made an impact on you.
could the argument against discussion of sex be seen like this?:
discussion about sex should be OK, especially if no minors are around
discussions about absolute filth aren't OK because most people don't to read absolute filth
discussions about sex invariably end up with one or more users (usually not the original posters) postin absolute filth
therefore we can't have discussions about sex
BF
Originally posted by belgianfreakYes, though premise 3 is debatable and I don't think the conclusion is necessarily based on the premises since it should be possible to keep absolute filth forbidden but still allow discussion of sex. However the original post of mine was not resigned to the domain of sex alone, but used it as an example of a topic which was under draconian moderation due to the low age allowance and the over-sealous alerting of certain threads. Alas some people seem to have taken it and run with it.
could the argument against discussion of sex be seen like this?:
discussion about sex should be OK, especially if no minors are around
discussions about absolute filth aren't OK because most people don't to read absolute filth
discussions about sex invariably end up with one or more users (usually not the original posters) postin absolute filth
therefore we can't have discussions about sex
BF
Ok let’s try again.
1) I believe that having minors on the site is more valuable to the site than discussions about sex. More chess players whatever their age is an important element of a chess site.
2) Direct comments about Raven to Raven. I am just saying that comparing a discussion about space travel to one about sex because both are not chess is laughable.
3) Again with the Raven. While sex and NSFW discussions are homogenous they do, in my work firewall environment have a lot in common.
4) I agree that argument is still ongoing. On this point I concede that you are more accurate than I. I should just have said that the current argument is pointless as the (correct in my view) decision has been made.
5) I realise that your idea was just to raise age of forums and wouldn’t restrict those under whatever age continuing to play chess. It would restrict them from the forums though which as you rightly point out are an integral part of this site. I enjoy the forums though only regularly read or contribute to Chess and Site Ideas. I believe all subscribers should have access to all forums. Since we have subscribers below legal age I believe we should, somehow, (I know its’ tough sometimes) simply discuss adult subjects on a more appropriate site.
6) I’m glad to see I’m not wilfully idiotic in your view. Some friends of mine might disagree. I did tell you to ‘Grow up’ though and for that I apologise. It implies that you are a child. A better sign off that first post probably would have been ‘Cop on’.
It would just be an appeal for you to see the foolishness of your idea. Noted for next time. Ta.
7) I’m not sure about degrees of arrogance but like you I think X-NZ is more arrogant. By how much exactly is subjective, but I’d say you run him pretty close. I’m glad you chose to accept my comments in the spirit they were intended. I say again, Well Done.
As to the impact you have made on me, I again agree. Though you’ll have to work very hard to beat that Malignant/Malinga joke. I still laugh at that one.
All of the very best to you S-Man.
😉
Originally posted by malingaWe'll have to remain disagreed on points 1 to 3 then. I apologise for any outburst towards you, I believe I had been wound up a great deal that day. My arrogance is not without regress...
Ok let’s try again.
1) I believe that having minors on the site is more valuable to the site than discussions about sex. More chess players whatever their age is an important element of a chess site.
2) Direct comments about Raven to Raven. I am just saying that comparing a discussion about space travel to one about sex because both are not chess is laug ...[text shortened]... gnant/Malinga joke. I still laugh at that one.
All of the very best to you S-Man.
😉
... and I'm still right 😉