Rules need to be applied

@terminus every time we report someone for posting pro contact shit you or @Meagan just end up closing the thread. They need to be banned. This is an anti contact website that is becoming somewhat infamous.

I know that we are much less strict than sites like virped but as a child protection organization we need to Protect Children. Under 18’s have recently been banned from gaining the power of moderation in the name of public scrutiny but we can’t terminate people who openly post pro contact crap on our forum. Come on, does that really make sense?

@anon16261197 Needs to be banned for posting pro contact lowering age of consent shit on his second account along with irritating other members and writing insane incomprehensible text blocks. Oh and here’s his second account in which he posted lowering the age of consent crap. @anon87554191

And I don’t want this to end with just the banning of him, our rules should be constantly applied.

3 Likes

Two can play your game

"Surtr moves from the south

with the scathe of branches

there shines from his sword

the sun of Gods of the Slain.

Stone peaks clash,

and troll wives take to the road.

Warriors tread the path from Hel,

and heaven breaks apart.

Then is fulfilled Hlín’s

second sorrow,

when Óðinn goes

to fight with the wolf,

and Beli’s slayer,

bright, against Surtr."

I don’t know exactly why I thought it would be funny to post that I’m actually really serious about this topic. Anyway, it’s from the voluspa, a historic collection of northern mythology. I don’t have a full transcript in that translation but just look up voluspa dot org if you want to read the full. Specifically that was 51-52

Sounds abit gay Freyr ain’t into that he had a giantess waifu before it was cool.

And what’s wrong with being “abit gay”? :kissing_smiling_eyes:

1 Like

Well, even loli Odin ended up getting a Gungnir… On her clit.

I think posting porn without valid justification is against the rules. I’m not advocating for any kind of punishment but its abit ironic given the topic.

I wrote NSFW, and from what I can see, no image can be directly seen from this site.

I don’t know its not really important.

You say that @anon16261197/@anon87554191 is pro-contact, he says he isn’t… we don’t have time to be researching the personal history of everyone who posts here; our decisions have to be taken based on what is posted here. Another thing to note is that much of the time when a thread is reported, when we get around to looking at it we find that there are already many strong responses repudiating what the person has said. So, there are certainly norms of behavior around this forum that are self-enforcing, even when we are not as heavy with the ban-hammer as some may like.

4 Likes

I’ve reported posts by both of his accounts where he heavily implies that he is of a pro-contact position. He only hides it by walls of text that only seem to test the patience of whoever is reading them.

Other users can immediately tell what he is.

@terminus
Please also take a look at his post here:
https://forum.prostasia.org/t/16-years-old-i-really-need-help/1978/22?u=chie

Someone like this shouldn’t be here.

1 Like

OK, I posted in that thread to clarify that if you are seeking mental health support, this forum isn’t the best place for that. Whatever you post here will be seen by trolls and antis. There are better places for you to go seeking support. This forum is intended more for discussion, not for crisis intervention.

2 Likes

I get that, and 100% agree with you on that front.
But that still leaves the issue of him (Mark Miner) being there in the first place as well as their unruly behavior.
This is why there needs to be more clear-cut rules on this sort of thing.

Please take stronger action against the people in question. I liken pro-contact advocacy to and other kind of troll posting here. It runs against the Foundation and its community. They shouldn’t be allowed to post here.

1 Like

It’s understandable that both you and Meagan don’t have the time for moderation of this forum, but have you thought about the solution to this issue?

Chie has been frequenting this forum for a long time, being active, spending lots of time reading and writing in here. The time he could offload from both of you if given an ability to moderate things on this forum, assuming he would agree to such a proposition.

He displayed enormous maturity when responding to others, clarity of judgment, analytical thinking, caring about values of freedom of speech, high level of intelligence allowing him to read between the lines with accuracy. And I think he already has proven himself as a person who can be trusted with such responsibility, a person that does deeply cares about this organization.

I know that a lot of people here care about allowing people to express their opinions, I agree too, I think that everyone should be given a chance to express their opinion, regardless of how disturbing it might be because there is more benefit to having such opinions discussed than to pretend they don’t exist.

But the fact remains that such principles are being exploited by all kinds of trolls to fabricate accounts of individuals claiming support of Prostasia while acting in deceptive ways to reinforce the paranoid suspicions many people in society have about this organization. On top of genuinely pro-contact individuals who seek to find others like them, or to convince others to be like them. Because even if it fools errand in the case of this forum, it’s still worrying to anyone seeing such effort allowed to happen.

I think most of us saw this article in which Michael45 posts and the fact that in his profile there is information that he was invited by terminus has been used to craft the narration that Prostasia supports individuals like him by being inviting and complicit in allowing his activity. Sure, some people are already aware of how manipulations like these work, we had a couple of people came in here saying that they weren’t tricked by the screenshots of his posts posted on one Discord server, most likely by Micheal himself.

But the majority of people are not going to spend their time reading the week’s worth of textual conversations I had with him exposing the double speak he has been using. Even now people researching this organization can look up his profile, seeing, that he is invited by terminus and that he is still allowed to post. Many of them will assume that this is the confirmation of the accusations because most people are simply too lazy to dig deeper. And they can’t be blamed for that being the case.

I don’t think that having a strict rule that results in an instant permaban of anyone even closely alluding to pro-contact rhetoric would be beneficial. When I met various individuals skeptical about this organization, I usually link them a thread in which they can see people like Chie, and many others, actively debunking statements of individuals that advocate for relationships between adults and children. Or where they give legitimately good advice to someone struggling with problems. Or explaining in logical, rational, and supported with external sources manners how the propositions Prostasia is giving away translate to the improvement of protection of minors.

Having the ability to see the community this organization gathered in action clears any of the misconceptions such people are having. Because to every claim like “Prostasia is a secret child sex trafficking hub akin to NAMBLA that tries to normalize pedophilia”, they see what you see:

But the problem is, they associate that stance with the community, and not with the organization itself. Anyone can have an account on this forum, but the accounts that matter the most are of the individuals being a part of the organization. There has to be some feedback within such discussions that come from people that represent Prostasia, in order for them to link that stance, with Prostasia as well.

What I’m proposing is not a ban of “pro-contact opinions”, there would be difficulty in determining what constitutes as such. Such opinions should be expressed and discussed because there is a benefit to them. But there should be a system of warnings, against deceptive behavior, and there needs to be a conclusion to individuals who behaved in such ways in spite of the warnings, that essentially summarizes what they did and why they got a ban. So people researching claims against Prostasia can easily see, that for instance, on Michaels’s profile there is information that he was banned for disingenuous and manipulative behavior that was aimed at mischaracterization of the organization’s mission as being supportive of child sexual abuse.

There could also be use in issuing warnings and eventually banning individuals who don’t use the search function of the forum and repeat the same threads over and over again. Like all the insecure individuals who talk using “we” instead of “I”, demand proofs of claims without giving any themselves, try to intimidate others and dominate them into submission, and clearly have no idea what the majority of society finds disturbing in regards to the topic of pedophilia.

This is the only compromise between freedom of speech and the protection of this organization’s reputation that I sadly have. One thing that has to be paid in mind is that because of the constant insistence of social media drama queens that Prostasia is “a front for pedophiles”, lot’s of disgruntled, resentful and antisocial individuals might believe it, hoping to find likeminded people or to simply troll the larger public for their own fun. And when such people come in here, there isn’t really much that would challenge what they believe Prostasia is. Daniel Rumanos himself thought that when Prostasia talks about “child protection”, they meant prepubescent children alone and that this organization was in support of hebephilic and ephebophilic relationships. And having such a system of warnings against deceptive behavior, or against red flags, could clear such people’s misconceptions.

As for Mark Miner, I think he should have a chance to stop talking in riddles, rather than to be instantly banned. I still find it hard to believe that someone who presents himself as a linguist, professional writer, and poesy enthusiast, with his insistence on communicating with others through the analogy of his favorite medium, which he should be an expert of, somehow manages to make multiple people conclude the opposite of what he alleges to try to communicate. He either is a deceptive pro-contact advocate, or simply a poor writer. One option needs to be eliminated before the second can be asserted, so the chance to do so would clear that misconception.

Chie has offered, and we are grateful! But we have been waiting until we have at least 2 other people to join the moderation team, because we don’t want to give one person the power to make these sorts of decisions unilaterally. If you want to offer, let us know! The criteria are stated in this thread.

3 Likes

See, this is what I mean.

We don’t like pro-contact.
We disagree with pro-contact.
We abhor pro-contact.

You’ve already expressed dozens of times that you’re pro-contact.
@prostasia is not, and like I’ve stated in my previous post, neither is the community you see before you.

B4U-ACT is just like Prostasia. They’re anti-contact, and they do not support or condone pro-contact ideology. I don’t know anything about BoyChat and their beliefs, or the beliefs of their community.

2 Likes

That’s incorrect, B4UACT is a MAP oriented organisation that very explicitly takes no stance. They are dramatically different from Prostasia and are in no way involved in CSA prevention. They do fantastic work for the rights and wellbeing of MAPs and they do it because MAPs deserve it, not as a means to an end as other organisations and initiatives do.

1 Like

Yeah, as the name itself suggests, they take no stance. None whatsoever.

Being focused on providing help to individuals struggling with pedophilic disorder is in it of itself a form of anti-contact effort. The sole reason they carry this mission is based around that premise: of helping MAPs before they act and commit an illegal act, in order for them not to do that. Their focus on MAPs, rather than on children, is just a different approach to achieve the same goal, even if other goals are also present.

Sure, if you define “anti-contact” as “we don’t want pro-contact people in here”, I guess you are right, they will talk and try to provide help to individuals who are pro-contact. But they will do it with the implicit goal of making sure they will be in the right state of their mind, to decide not to cross the line, to reduce the risk of them committing an offense, exploiting someone underage, going to jail, regardless of the beliefs they might hold.

There is no neutral position between “anti-contact” and “pro-contact” positions. The absolute base position on the topic of pedophilia is that adults shouldn’t interact in sexual ways with underage individuals. The “pro-contact” is the opposite of that stance, so, it was useful to give that base stance also a name, of “anti-contact”, simply for the sake of brevity of discourse.

It’s a dichotomy with one base position, and the second opposing it. This is why when anyone is not explicitly stating their position on these topics, we fall back on assuming that they are, just like everyone else, what you could shortly describe as “anti-contact”. And I think this is why Chie states that this organization is anti-contact, further explaining that “they do not support or condone pro-contact ideology”.

3 Likes

Yeah, the name is very misleading, something they have acknowledged. It’s intended to be directed at therapists “think before you act” as that’s the main group they work with, but kind of backfired. Most people think they’re anti-c from the name but they have clarified a few times they’re not, I can try digging that up.

No, the sole reason they do what they do is helping MAPs, that’s it, and that’s why they’re different from other organisations. They recognise that I am a person for whom decent mental healthcare is near impossible to find and want that to change; other organisations also want to improve mental healthcare for me but only because they see it as a means to an end. You can imagine which approach I prefer, the one that sees me as a human being with needs that society is failing to meet versus the one that sees me as a risk to be minimised.

1 Like

So are you telling me, that this group, after hearing some of their patient say, that they are going to sexually abuse a child, but are to depressed to have motivation to do so, would provide that person with help to only solve their depression, nothing else, and continue to aid that person, regardless of how many evidences of their crimes they send them, never informing any authorities, simply acting as if no crime has took place, and continuing to solve mental problems of this patient, without any concern for anyone except that patient, caring only for that patient mental health, without concern to any victims they harmed?

I have a hard time believing that this is the case. I can understand that if they were to met a patient who committed an offence, they would not dismiss that person, but instead they would provide such person with mental support, in hopes of both helping this patient, and through this effort, making sure they will not commit any more crimes nor suffer personal distress regardless of whenever they have a desire to do something that is against the law.

Having a mindset of treating individuals with pedophilic disorder as people with mental health issue, rather than monsters who need to be leashed, isn’t what I would call “neither pro nor anti contact”. I would very much call it an anti-contact stance. Because as you yourself admitted, it’s more effective in actually bringing individuals like you to get that mental support, to make such individuals be able to talk with someone outside of their own mind, who would put a light to any possible rationalizations they could have, to bring a different perspective, work through all the issues, to effectively treat pedophilic disorder, and make such person be simply a pedophile.

Because just being a pedophile, without pedophilic disorder, is once again, something I would call being an anti-contact. Just like any adult attracted person, without having a disorder, is anti-rape.

2 Likes