If I want porn ads I'll go elsewhere!

[Dutch Canuck]

To Civfanatics Admin:

I borrow the following quote from a thread on swearing:

Ainwood

Thunderfall wants this to remain a family orientated & rated forum. People should be able to come here, and allow their children to come here, without being exposed to the kind of language that they may not approve of.

Now I have ammunition...

I post to protest the girlie ads from UGO. I come here to see things related to civ and I expect the ads to be the kind appropriate to a variable age and gender audience. If I want to see anything sexual I'll go elsewhere. When I visit Civfantics the last thing on my mind is sex!

So knock it off with the juvenile sexual ads! Women in skimpy underwear in highly suggestive poses and facial expressions? And children visit this site? That really angers me!

So if Civfanatics is a "family" rated site, what's with the ads of a sexual nature from UGO? A policy on language has to be consistant with a policy on images as well. Right? Right?

Sorry to be so tough, but that is my firm position and how I feel - and I cannot imagine I am alone on this.

PS: UGO itself is juvenile for having a pseudo-playboy site section called "Girls". I cannot support their voyeuristic sexism, and I do not appreciate seeing ads for it here. The Internet is infested with porn, why can't we be free of the sexual innuendo here?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

We have no control what ads are being put in the banner.

Report those you find offensive and TF will take it up with the host providers.

 

[Dutch Canuck]

Thank you very much for acknowledging my concern. I will report whenever I see something that appears inappropriate to me for the audience here. I am open minded about many things - but shielding kids and maintaining a comfortable space for all are things I take seriously. Context is everything.

This raises a new question: is it common practice for the variable content of banner ads to be totally in the hands of the advertiser and not the host? (I learned something new today!)

 

[Knight-Dragon]

AFAIK, TF has an agreement with our host provider not to put up ads of questionable content... No idea who decides on the ad though...

Basically our host provider gives us free hosting for our website and forums, but we have to carry ads. I think TF gets a (small?) per centage of the ad revenue too.

 

[TeleFragged]

I need screenshots of the offiensive ads please.

 

[Dutch Canuck]

I am collecting screenshots as I can. I will post them mid-week since the ad frequency varies by day and hour and I am not online all the time.

 

[Marsden]

I saw a few also, but I miss most of them because when I post from work the ad only shows an X. I also am against those kind of ads. I didn't think there was anything we could do about it so I ignored them.

The Strawberry Shortcake movie is nice on the other hand.

 

[Plotinus]

Women in skimpy underwear in highly suggestive poses and facial expressions?

I have to say, that's not what I would call "porn"!

Unless you're getting much racier ads than I am.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I have to say, that's not what I would call "porn"!

I have not seen the ad, but I agree it does not sound like porn. Not at all!

 

[azzaman333]

While I wouldn't classify it as porn, I would say it's inappropriate for the site.

 

[Abaddon]

It links to porn...

thats enough to get the chop isnt it?

 

[Plotinus]

I don't think the Ugo ads link to porn. Either that or I haven't searched their site thoroughly enough. It is rife with appalling spelling, which puts me off.

 

[Abaddon]

Clicking the link, takes you to a section to download videos... mostly model photoshoots, some are topless aleast, i dont know it it gets more than that. Requires installing software to view.. so i couldnt tell you any futher.

 

[BCLG100]

Tempted to turn my add blocker off so i can see but i prefer to get crap on my computer in other ways

 

[mdwh]

I see them too, and yes it links to porn ( http://foxyfans.ugo.com/ ), certainly not "family friendly".

I don't have any personal problem with seeing it - but I do have a problem if the regular posters are restricted in what they can say because children come here, but it's okay for the site to be advertising porn at us. Whether or not you define it as porn is a matter of definitions, but the point is it's of at least a graphic and unsuitable nature compared with threads that get locked for not being family friendly.

 

[Padma]

Just to see what the fuss is about, I clicked on that link. Porn? Maybe if you have a very broad definition of it. It was suggestive, yes, but it fell within our own guidelines for the Babe threads: no nipples, no pubic hair, not butt cracks, etc. Just a single person, in various poses, always with something on her bottom half (maybe not much, but something), and her top either clothed, or otherwise covered.

No, I didn't click everything, maybe something does lead to something "worse".

IMHO, the ad definitely pushes the boundaries, but I don't know if it is worth making a fuss over. It's TF's call.

 

[mdwh]

There are topless pictures in there. If that's okay, fair enough, but then it's unclear why forum posters have to abide by family friendly rules when it comes to disussing sexual or other adult topics (even if it's just about sexuality, and nothing graphic).

 

[Methos]

Whether or not you define it as porn is a matter of definitions,

I believe they (i.e. Telefragged, etc.) use the legal definition of the term porn, as that's the one that they will be liable for.

 

[Red Door]

I believe they (i.e. Telefragged, etc.) use the legal definition of the term porn, as that's the one that they will be liable for.

There's a legal definition for porn?

 

[Olleus]

theres a legal definition for everything; even for "legal definition"