The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com.
Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.
Also, on one side, you’re worried about not being able to push back on psychotic people, on the other, people want to be left in peace without constant moral condemnations for harmless kinks.
I think both are valid concerns. But, in my recollection, the self-admitted pedophiles seem aware of...
A better analogy might be:
If a non-con reader said while quoting a rape scene-
-would it be kinkshaming to reply-
That's all. BPW isn't even saying the first user shouldn't be able to say that, just that the second should be allowed the leeway to pushback (no moderation involved). At the...
Vanbers: Correct me if I'm wrong BronzePlaceWriter, but the main thing BPW is worried about, is that, when someone who identifies as a pedophile* says they want to fuck a RL kid, it's against the rules to tell them that 'doing so would be abhorrent, so don't'. That's it.
*I'm typing that word...
I also don't get what you're saying.
What exactly are you suggesting? You don't think pedophiles should be harassed or shunned or treated badly, but you don't think they should be protected by the rules? What rule specifically should they be exempt from, if not rule 1? Do you want a new rule...
I don't think QQ would be held liable if someone dumped CP, whatever the motive, otherwise most large internet sites wouldn't survive. I'm pretty sure that's happened on SB before, and possibly QQ*, so as long as the fiction distinction is clearly drawn and enforced, I don't think the userbase...
Seen a variety of mods in 'Users who are viewing this thread', so they know. Might be conferring, waiting till everyone (or at least a select few) staff have chimed in, before responding. *shrug* Don't think there's a rush anyhow.
Think, legally, everything's groovy as long as it's clearly fiction (due to the servers being hosted in America). There's zero tolerance for anything that could be RL (like realistic art, for said legal, and assumedly moral, reasons), but there's plenty of underage and 'loli' smut, and I don't...
Nah, don't think anyone (including pedophiles) would object to statements to the effect of 'pedophilia is awful'. Anyone wanting to vent about that is probably fine to do so, providing it's not derailing a thread.
I've seen at least two QQ members identify as pedophiles, so it'd probably break the-
-clause of Rule 1.
A literal reading of the recent* rule change regarding Rule 8 seems to allow discussion of pedophilia as long as you don't include personal attacks, but I'm not sure they had that in mind...
My (and a friend's) public to private message ratio skews massively in favour of the latter, so if I want to look through either of our profiles I have to go through a magnitude more posts.
This is an inconvenience that didn't previously exist, though (contradicting the satirical title) XenForo...
Update: The ‘Latest activity’ section of the profile only shows *public* posts/reactions, which would solve the problem, but some people have that specific section of the profile disabled (possibly the ‘Allow users to: Receive your news feed:’ privacy setting), so back to square one.
Since the forum transition, the 'Postings' section of profiles now includes Conversation messages. This makes it harder to go through public posts. Am I missing an option to disable this, or can that option/filter become available?
Presumably filigree has ‘Receive your news feed’ set to ‘People You Follow Only’, and they aren’t Following you (or anyone else):
It’s in the Privacy section.
When a new account makes its first post, staff need to manually approve it (presumably to combat spammers); you can see Questionnaire only has one message on their account in your screenshot. I’m pretty sure this is the cause of old alerts sometimes showing up after new ones.
This is a writing challenge thread, but it seems to be solely dedicated to word count commitments with a deadline. I think a dedicated general thread for challenges and prompts sounds like a good idea.