What the hell?!?!? (google message)

[Run the ball]

Can someone else try to explain this to him?

I understand everything quite clearly and I'm pretty sure most do too. You keep arguing about the ads, I haven't said I word about that, I'm talking about content of the site and what went/goes on that affect these ads. It was nowhere near the level that you and others seem to imply and add to that 99% of such content was found on the very website that is now dictating to CCS.

 

[Run the ball]

this is NOT an adult website.

Yes it is, the language alone makes it.

 

[WCL]

This is the internet, not TV. That's why people are calling it hypocrisy, it's not that hard to understand.

This is an adult website and should be classified as such.

If this site wants to be classified as an adult site, they should use a different ad service. They should use one which allows nudity and runs ads by companies that are okay with it.

They choose to use Google because they want money from Google. In order to use their service, they agreed to certain standards. That's why they're trying to maintain those standards.

And this is identical to the deal between cable networks, the shows they run and their advertisers. Identical. How can you not see that?

And again, for ****'s sake, there is no hypocrisy here. At all. Google asks its associates not to allow nudity on the same page as ads. Google doesn't allow nudity on its on pages that have ads. It follows its on fucking rules.

 

[Urblock]

this is NOT an adult website.

No adults here.

 

[clonetrooper264]

No adults here.

:yep:

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Guys.

Why don't you all just shut the hell up about it and follow the new rules? If you don't like the ridiculous new rules then go post on a site that allows fun.
Good lord... stop giving Rush and Crys such a hard time.

Maybe if you stingy people donated more, Rush wouldn't have to be owned/controlled by Google.

Enough already!

 

[gpphat]

It's not hypocritical at all.

no more hypocritical than a surgeon asking you not to stab people with his scalpel, imo.

I honestly don't care about the restriction, I can't think of a time I posted provocative pictures or anything that would be considered inappropriate outside of hypnotoad. I just think its hypocritical to say pictures that are brought up through their search engine, that Google doesn't censor on their own website, are not appropriate for a website that sponsors them or whatever Google is to CCS.

It's not a big deal in my eyes, hypocrisy happens all the time in all facets of life...just didn't expect this to be a Google issue, had this been something Rush/zack asked without bringing up Google I wouldn't have said a word...it's their website and if they don't want those images on the public parts of the website then so be it (and they may feel this way regardless of the Google message). But to hear that Google doesn't want suggestive images that are found on their own website, it's just a little odd. Again, I don't really care and it effects me in no way...just my thoughts on this whole situation.

 

[WCL]

I honestly don't care about the restriction, I can't think of a time I posted provocative pictures or anything that would be considered inappropriate outside of hypnotoad. I just think its hypocritical to say pictures that are brought up through their search engine, that Google doesn't censor on their own website, are not appropriate for a website that sponsors them or whatever Google is to CCS.

It's not a big deal in my eyes, hypocrisy happens all the time in all facets of life...just didn't expect this to be a Google issue, had this been something Rush/zack asked without bringing up Google I wouldn't have said a word...it's their website and if they don't want those images on the public parts of the website then so be it (and they may feel this way regardless of the Google message). But to hear that Google doesn't want suggestive images that are found on their own website, it's just a little odd. Again, I don't really care and it effects me in no way...just my thoughts on this whole situation.

It's not a moral issue. I think that's what a lot of you don't understand.

 

[HeHateMe]

Yes it is, the language alone makes it.

Maybe by Canadian standards, but not American.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Guys.

Why don't you all just shut the hell up about it and follow the new rules? If you don't like the ridiculous new rules then go post on a site that allows fun.
Good lord... stop giving Rush and Crys such a hard time.

Maybe if you stingy people donated more, Rush wouldn't have to be owned/controlled by Google.

Enough already!

P.S. I am donating $25 this evening when I get home. However, I will need to ask for it back if someone decides to ban me for being nice again.

 

[Run the ball]

I honestly don't care about the restriction, I can't think of a time I posted provocative pictures or anything that would be considered inappropriate outside of hypnotoad. I just think its hypocritical to say pictures that are brought up through their search engine, that Google doesn't censor on their own website, are not appropriate for a website that sponsors them or whatever Google is to CCS.

It's not a big deal in my eyes, hypocrisy happens all the time in all facets of life...just didn't expect this to be a Google issue, had this been something Rush/zack asked without bringing up Google I wouldn't have said a word...it's their website and if they don't want those images on the public parts of the website then so be it (and they may feel this way regardless of the Google message). But to hear that Google doesn't want suggestive images that are found on their own website, it's just a little odd. Again, I don't really care and it effects me in no way...just my thoughts on this whole situation.

Yeah exactly.


I'm just trying to have a straight conversation of what's going on here, I'm not giving the owners any hard time at all. If I would I'd be chatting via PM with them.

People keep talking about nudes and shit, where was all this stuff?


And Grimson, try not getting banned for a month before white knighting, thanks.

 

[Run the ball]

Maybe by Canadian standards, but not American.

Ok HHM, you can go now.

 

[gpphat]

It's not a moral issue. I think that's what a lot of you don't understand.

Are the provocative photos that are being posted on the messageboards showing up in the ads that CCS does with Google?

 

[Run the ball]

Are the provocative photos that are being posted on the messageboards showing up in the ads that CCS does with Google?

You don't get it obviously.

Seriously though, where were theses nudes!?! Did I miss something on here??

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Yeah exactly.


I'm just trying to have a straight conversation of what's going on here, I'm not giving the owners any hard time at all. If I would be chatting via PM with them.

People keep talking about nudes and shit, where was all this stuff?


And Grimson, try not getting banned for a month before white knighting, thanks.

I don't know how it's white knighting? I'm just asking you guys to stop acting like children and just follow GOOGLES rules and be done with it.

People can go ******* to a pornsite or mock draft of they really have the urge. No need for nudity here.

 

[WCL]

Are the provocative photos that are being posted on the messageboards showing up in the ads that CCS does with Google?

Does CCS run ads through Google?

 

[Run the ball]

I don't know how it's white knighting? I'm just asking you guys to stop acting like children and just follow GOOGLES rules and be done with it.

People can go ******* to a pornsite or mock draft of they really have the urge. No need for nudity here.

I didn't see no jerking off material on this site. Maybe for a 12 year old there is, but a 12 year old has no business reading or posting CCS.

 

[Tjodalv]

Does CCS run ads through Google?

I believe so.

And I think -- although I could be wrong -- the issue people have with the statement sent by Google is that they don't wish content to be posted that is readily available through their own image search service with all parental controls in place (safesearch on and such).

If "strategically covered nudity" is an issue then why is it accessible through their own parental controls? What constitutes "strategically covered nudity?" Wearing cloths? Pretty sure that's pretty much the definition of strategically covering nudity. Stuff like they do on the black tape project? Would that fall under this category? If so people in bathing suites must also. It's just incredibly vague and makes no sense under what they, themselves, deem "safe."

 

[HeHateMe]

I didn't see no jerking off material on this site. Maybe for a 12 year old there is, but a 12 year old has no business reading or posting CCS.

My 2nd cousin would disagree with you on that. Username: DJMoore_is_Fat

 

[gpphat]

Does CCS run ads through Google?

I'm guessing yes, which is why I asked if the ads are showing the content of the posts on the messageboard?

But my original point isn't about CCS and them abiding by Googles ad policy...more so that images that can be found and are displayed through Google are not allowed. If they wouldn't want those images being used through their advertisers than those shouldn't be available through their search engine