Moderation on . safenet links

This is the place to discuss moderation on .safenet links.

First off, wouldn’t it make sense to screen the links prior to showing your kid anything on the network? I did clearly state that I was pushing the envelope. Many times have I informed all who follow the main development threads and the link posting thread that I would be adding more explicit material. I also made sure to tell the more conservative of this bunch to avoid the link. On top of that I made sure to prepend the url of my first link with the well known symbols xxx. I will admit that my very first post on this new thread didn’t have a clear disclaimer.

Second. No single person owns this forum IIRC. It’s controlled by a collective. Funny that matters on this forum would be handled dictatorially. Was there inside discussion that reached consensus or was it just one mans decision to censor another? If he or anyone else felt that my links were unwelcome, why was I not informed? I’m not unreasonable. My anger stems from being treated flippantly. I welcome in return the respect I extend to others. That is all. :expressionless:

1 Like

On a lighter note. I have nearly reached 50MB of private data (Super Nintendo roms). A personal record. At first it kept failing, but after the third attempt, the network is just accepting the data without issue. There was an error that popped up earlier but I was to quick to dismiss it. Next time I’ll be sure to slow down and reported. Fun times! :grin:


Personal reply here, not as mod…

@Tonda I wasn’t involved in the moderation of your links, but it strikes me as a poor decision on your part to post things that are not suitable for lots of people (based on your descriptions - I haven’t viewed any of the links you posted) on a thread like this one.

Regardless of what warnings you posted in other places, people are likely to want to show this topic to all and sundry, and won’t be reading the detail of each post as they go from one link to another.

You seem want to put all the responsibility on the viewer (suggesting they pre-view links), and not take much yourself, because you like this content and want to disseminate it. And then you posted a link without such warning anyway.

The fact is that in their enthusiasm many people will just be clicking on the links, not reading the details, not pre-viewing every one first. Especially from people they see as regulars. I agree it’s their responsibility, but I don’t agree that you don’t have responsibility also, when you know some, many I’d say, will not expect this on such a high profile topic.

I’m personal very unhappy with your attitude to me and others as readers of the forum over the nature of what you’re posting here - not speaking as a mod here. Lucky for me, I keep up with your posts and was wary of what you might post. Many in this topic will be visiting for the first time and having connected to SAFEnetwork will be eager to click on any links they find. It’s not as if what you are uploading is hard to find, and I don’t get why you are so blaze about the people who may stumble on it unintentionally.

The reason moderators may act hastily in situations like this, and can get it wrong sometimes, is because we do care and we try to do the best for the whole community and the project.


Then how did this happen?:

So their impulse supersedes reason? Live and learn don’t cultivate ignorance. You’re back pedaling friend. I still love you though. :slight_smile:[quote=“happybeing, post:54, topic:7716”]
I agree it’s their responsibility, but I don’t agree that you don’t have responsibility also, when you know some, many I’d say, will not expect this on such a high profile topic.

I never said I don’t take the responsibility. :confused:

The topic is relatively low profile all things considered. But what are you implying? That sex is deviant or natural? That it’s another trigger among many for repression and social hostility. That we shouldn’t maintain the taboo. I’m confused. :hushed:

Good, lets not pussy foot. My intent is to express myself freely regardless of what others might think. Was is not you that told me that “dissent is always good” more or less. Are you attacking yourself?

Hastily? Please. 48 hours is hardly that. I’m sorry if I’ve negatively affected your being… :smirk:


hmmm - ok since people are discussing here … I’d like to mention that though I think the argument [quote=“happybeing, post:54, topic:7716”]
The fact is that in their enthusiasm many people will just be clicking on the links, not reading the details, not pre-viewing every one first.

is absolutely valid, i had to laugh when i visited @Tonda s link :smiley: yes maybe disturbing children/some adults but nonetheless funny to others :innocent:

… maybe since this is the thread many will go through and just click on links … NSFW-content should really be listed somewhere else oO …
(since “the sun” is such a large “newspaper” as well as the “Bild” here in germany … i’m not sure how valid the argument “not suitable for lots of people” really is @happybeing … i’d vote for “maybe not suitable in this category because people are hypocritical, not cautious and we don’t want them to get into awkward situations”)

ps: and you are talking to someone who doesn’t accept a “Bild” he would get for free … hard to believe to me the honest moral standards of “the majority” are way higher … personal opinion of course …

1 Like

@Tonda I’m not going to get into a big debate here about this. I’ve stated my position pretty clearly and I think you’ve twisted my words rather than responded to them, so I can only hope people will take the time to read what I wrote and can understand what I did mean, rather than from what you have presented it to mean.

I call bullshit… :relieved:

This is hilarious.

  • We’ve no clue what was moderated
  • We can’t even tell why (except that it made the mods unhappy, but listening to the other side it seems it was some quality porn)
  • But at least we have a chance to discuss this… Like sheeple that votes in democratic elections.

Oh well… Whatever. Lucky us, we are still protected from… something!

To top it off, the topic outrageously claims to be moderation, although it’s about censoring.

Moderation would be where you change the name of the link but leave the link there.
Or you point a link to moderated.safenet and there create a redirect link to the actual site. This borders on URL hijacking, but still it pales in comparison with what’s going on here.


1 Like

Moderators take care of you not having to have a clue about what was moderated :slight_smile: You can make it about censoring, it is nothing more than simple allowing or disallowing porn on the forum…

1 Like

All replies are here, nothing got deleted. I also placed a reply explaining why. It’s because that topic is about sharing .safenet links and should not be about if we allow nsfw or not or a discussion between 2 people about that subject. And we move most topics about moderation to META. That’s where it belongs.

If you take a close look in that topic you see that no links where removed yet. So you can actually tell why because I made a reply like I said above.

No mod sees members here as “sheeple”.

No one is “protected” at the moment because no links were removed yet (although we still have a lot of PM’s about it at the moment)

Again, nothing is deleted. All replies are from that topic and moved over to here because they are a personal discussion between 2 people/mod.

Again, the links to nsfw are still there, no replies are deleted when I moved some replies about moderation to this topic. I also made it clear why I made the move and reached consensus with other mods before I did. @happybeing was not involved in this decision because he was involved in that discussion. And to show you I’m not making this up here’s a screenshot of the Slack-channel where I notified @happybeing that I touched his post. I also “apologized” a bit because it doesn’t feel comfortable to touch another mod his post. But again, I had consensus with other mods about it.

And when it comes to @Tonda, he was invited by @frabrunelle to join PM with @ moderators to discuss the links because we see it as in/not within the FG. Not all is black and white.

It’s Saturday right now and most people are free from work. But as you can see, mods are active in discussions, reach consensus on what they do and even invite forum members in these discussion as well. If you want us to do things different, feel free to write a proposal :thumbsup:.


Gotta agree with janitor here actually…

But it is Mark’s webring so he can do as he pleases.

@Tonda just make your own post, or webring without moderation

1 Like

Again, we didn’t touch any link in Tonda’s post. So can we all agree no moderation is done on Tonda’s links so far?

I don’t think this was about’s Mark’s webring but let me know if I’ve missed something. Mark made his personal opinion clear about NSFW stuff on the safelink topic. @janitor claimed: [quote=“janitor, post:9, topic:7842”]
(except that it made the mods unhappy, but listening to the other side it seems it was some quality porn)

Forgive me if I’m a little off here because English is not my first language. But this statement is in past simple (??) giving the impression that links to “it seems it was some quality porn” were removed. As I said before, no safelink from Tonda’s post is removed at all and both are still there. We also didn’t censor anything:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

The links are still there, the topic is still open for discussion here. So no censorship.

A discussion was started if this is yes/no in line with the Forum Guidelines. Not that weird though because as mods we always work from the perspective that this forum is family friendly.


I see. I apologize, I must have misunderstood

But what is then being discussed? The topic is moderation.
What’s the idea/plan/intent here?

I don’t think you should, but that’s classy.
I maintain that the topic title was and is misleading.

Was the title of this topic supposed to be “self-moderation”?

What does that even mean, to take responsibility for using your freedom of speech?
You either try to incite someone to violate other people’s rights (where you should take responsibility for just that inciting or inviting violence), or you’re merely stating your opinion.
This is clearly the latter, so if you’re asking for self-moderation then state your intent clearly.

The .safenet-links topic is for posting .safenet-links. Then some NSFW showed up and as mods we started a discussion in PM if that’s ok or not. We always mod from the perspective that this forum should be family friendly. At the same time Happy gave his personal opinion about Tonda his links and a discussion started about allowing NSFW or not in that topic. So I moved the discussion moderation yes/no to this topic in META. I could’ve used a different name as well. I don’t know, give me a good title and I change it. “Discussion about the .safenet topic” might be one, I don’t know. The baseline is, that topic with .safelinks is cleaned up and people can scroll the .safenet links without searching trough a discussion about whatever.

I agree, no need to apologize. I really don’t know a way of starting a new topic and move some replies and keeping everything clear to everyone. We sometimes get Flags and it takes me a few reads before I even get what a topic is about.

That’s fine, and maybe a better title was/is possible. But I pass back to you that you used a lot of strong opinion without really getting the details IMO. A question like “What was exactly moderated?” would’ve triggered me to write a reply as well.

Well, the title of this topic is confusing, if not misleading, and your original comment only confirmed that this topic was meant to be on moderation.

Then the only other mod comment after that was this:

Then I commented based on the following:

  • No links existed as to what was (or suggested to be) moderated (including link to Tonda’s post)
  • Moderation by mods mentioned in topic title, OP and the next mod’s comment

What could one assume but that the topic was on moderation by forum mods and the post in question was moderated away?

Seriously? When it comes to tech you dive deep in the details and call people “jokers”, “clueless individuals” and “clowns” because they clearly don’t get the details of the tech at the level you do.

And when it comes to moderation you talk about things being “hilarious” use words like “sheeple” that are allowed to vote and talk about censoring without a thing being censored. All based on the fact that “Moderation by mods” is in the topic title. Ohw, and of course there was no link to Tonda’s post. So you got fired up about moderation on a reply you didn’t read??

I truly respect you for a lot of stuff you post here on the forum. But you can’t have it both ways. When you dive in details on tech and call people “clowns” because they don’t get it, you can not at the same time jump on another topic without knowing what’s going on (and you sure didn’t). Well, actually you can. But to me is doesn’t really make sense.

How is one supposed to dive in when there are no links or any references?
Do you expect one to check all Tonda’s post (in this case) or Al_Kafir’s post since 2014?

I figure everyone will be better off if I mute this entire category… Doing it now.

There’s only 1 topic on this website for .safenet-links and that’s this one. Tonda started talking about that topic in his first reply here. If you took 2 seconds to check what this topic was all about you would’ve found this reply:

And even if you didn’t bother to do that you could’ve made one simple reply asking: “What was moderated?” And I would’ve explained it to you in details. Another option was to just Flag this topic saying you didn’t agree with any .safenet links being removed (even if there weren’t any) and make your point that way. But instead:

You jumped in this topic here with your first words being: “This is hilarious.” And next you go in sarcastic mode saying: “Oh well… Whatever. Lucky us, we are still protected from… something!” Without 1 .safenet link being removed from someone’s reply at all. In your last reply you agree you didn’t dive in this topic but that didn’t withhold you from making claims about unhappy mods removing links to some “quality porn”. Is that improving any discsussion?

But when it comes to your views about the blockchain 2 days ago, this is what others got:

And “jokers” isn’t the only qualification you gave them, because a few replies later you call them “clueless individuals” and “clowns”. Why is that? Because they jumped in to a topic without diving in the details?? Boy, these forum members these days!