Discussion SS visibility and new rules - what do you guys think?

[D&D]

I am not sure if it is how it really happened, but it seems to me that SS become publicly visible (no longer visible/accessible only to members) at or around the same time the new policy on posting was introduced.

If this is correct, it suggests to me compromise between forum's public visibility/accessibility and the type/content of posts allowed.

While I can understand why (traffic) it is preferable that forum is publicly visible/accessible, I am not sure why an option of making posts visible/accessible only to members is not allowed? I have asked about it before, but received no response. Is it because, if such option becomes available, lots of members may chose it, thus reducing traffic?

Like many , I too am deeply hurt by the manner this forum and its members have been treaded and have written about it, however, not having an option of reducing or limiting public visibility/accessibility leaves us wide open to any kind of abuse, including capture and distribution/circulation of posts.

As I said - I could be wrong about all this so would be great to hear your views.

Thank you.

 

[KlMeNw]

its pure bullshit....

dont even have the will for proper punctuation

 

[Chinaski]

I am not sure if it is how it really happened, but it seems to me that SS become publicly visible (no longer visible/accessible only to members) at or around the same time the new policy on posting was introduced.

If this is correct, it suggests to me compromise between forum's public visibility/accessibility and the type/content of posts allowed.

While I can understand why (traffic) it is preferable that forum is publicly visible/accessible, I am not sure why an option of making posts visible/accessible only to members is not allowed? I have asked about it before, but received no response. Is it because, if such option becomes available, lots of members may chose it, thus reducing traffic?

Like many , I too am deeply hurt by the manner this forum and its members have been treaded and have written about it, however, not having an option of reducing or limiting public visibility/accessibility leaves us wide open to any kind of abuse, including capture and distribution/circulation of posts.

As I said - I could be wrong about all this so would be great to hear your views.

Thank you.

My own view is that many people probably read this site a lot before joining. I did. To apply to join a community such as this one without being privy to what you are actually entering is off-putting to people who are at the point of wanting to engage. Closing the content off closes off the community imo, the people who want to join without seeing it first are more likely to be those doing it for suss reasons.

If the community is to be opened in this way then l understand why this particular theme of our content and output is curtailed slightly. This is different from censorship. Nobody is being censored by being encouraged to refer people to the pph when it comes to method chat, rather than simply parrot that info themselves. The curtailment is imo a sensible one in that it balances the needs of this community to enable members to source their own method if they wish, without leaving the site open to attack due to content which could be perceived as "encouraging", or influencing in any way.

It's my opinion that, in the past, this site has occasionally done itself few favours by allowing content which stretches the line of what is acceptable within this community because hey, safe haven, no judgement, etc etc - the reality is we're now under some scrutiny and have to apply standards which reflect that. This isn't about censoring ourselves for prolifers imo, it's more about protecting this forum, and by extension its members, from any harm that may come from folk coming here in bad faith to source individual comments which can be used against the forum as a whole.

The bad people are already reading ur stuff, under dodgy accounts. Opening the forum but with stricter messaging on output is the right balance imo.

 

[sanction]

Society is messed up. All this stressful day to day forced survival (none of us asked to be born) is driving us to rock bottom. This is the final place we can share our thoughts & feelings with other like minded individual raw with no filter. Also willing to accompany each other as we go through our final moments. Yet they are taking it away. Simply speechless..... they just want all humans in society to act like mindless and souless machines that will blindly obey their every rule

 

[Chinaski]

Society is messed up. All this stressful day to day forced survival (none of us asked to be born) is driving us to rock bottom. This is the final place we can share our thoughts & feelings with other like minded individual raw with no filter. Also willing to accompany each other as we go through our final moments. Yet they are taking it away. Simply speechless..... they just want all humans in society to act like mindless and souless machines that will blindly obey their every rule

You still can do literally all of those things though.

 

[Lifeless mindset]

I think its bullshit

 

[D&D]

its pure bullshit....

dont even have the will for proper punctuation

Thank you @KIMeNw,

Punctuation be dammed -:)!

 

[NormaJeane]

Yeah, Sanctioned Suicide can be visibly only to its members - why should suicide opponents be able to read here? But I think it is almost unbelievable that this website has been around for several years in a world where suicide and human death is taboo.

 

[D&D]

My own view is that many people probably read this site a lot before joining. I did. To apply to join a community such as this one without being privy to what you are actually entering is off-putting to people who are at the point of wanting to engage. Closing the content off closes off the community imo, the people who want to join without seeing it first are more likely to be those doing it for suss reasons.

If the community is to be opened in this way then l understand why this particular theme of our content and output is curtailed slightly. This is different from censorship. Nobody is being censored by being encouraged to refer people to the pph when it comes to method chat, rather than simply parrot that info themselves. The curtailment is imo a sensible one in that it balances the needs of this community to enable members to source their own method if they wish, without leaving the site open to attack due to content which could be perceived as "encouraging", or influencing in any way.

It's my opinion that, in the past, this site has occasionally done itself few favours by allowing content which stretches the line of what is acceptable within this community because hey, safe haven, no judgement, etc etc - the reality is we're now under some scrutiny and have to apply standards which reflect that. This isn't about censoring ourselves for prolifers imo, it's more about protecting this forum, and by extension its members, from any harm that may come from folk coming here in bad faith to source individual comments which can be used against the forum as a whole.

The bad people are already reading ur stuff, under dodgy accounts. Opening the forum but with stricter messaging on output is the right balance imo.

Thank you @Chinaski

I too read the site for sometime before joining. Wondering, at the very start, whether the posts are actually written by a real people. I wrote about my experience in an essay I uploaded on here too. In the interest of honesty.

I did not suggest to close the content off completely, only to have the option of 'members only' posts/profiles for those who would like/prefer that. I was also wondering about the possible reasons why such an option is not offered.

If, as you said, community is opened in this way, meaning without any alternative, than of course there is to be some sort of 'curtailment' whether 'slightly' or 'less slightly' - depending on one's interpretation.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[theguineapigking]

I completely understand why the admin(s?) have chosen to do this… but I think it'd be cool if the normal discussion forum was brought back, only for members to see. Even if it were to require one to be a member for x amount of time before they could access it.

These pro-lifers are so annoying. It's like the mosquitos that won't leave you alone. It's laughable how they want to censor all people whom are suffering. They want to force us to live in pain. They would NEVER legalize euthanasia either.

These pro-lifers actually make me want to die even more!!!

 

[D&D]

Society is messed up. All this stressful day to day forced survival (none of us asked to be born) is driving us to rock bottom. This is the final place we can share our thoughts & feelings with other like minded individual raw with no filter. Also willing to accompany each other as we go through our final moments. Yet they are taking it away. Simply speechless..... they just want all humans in society to act like mindless and souless machines that will blindly obey their every rule

That is what I was/am trying to suggest ... to provide the private option for those that would prefer it.

If of any consolation someone very smart once said that 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society'

 

[Round Two]

Honestly, new rules, no new rules, I'm fucking scared. If what I say here gets twisted enough in some investigation and I end up in legal trouble over it, I'll die getting raped to death in some men's prison. With no exaggeration, that is my worst nightmare. It's stupid and paranoid, but even the chance of some crazy shit like that happening has me considering deleting my account.

 

[D&D]

You still can do literally all of those things though.

As long as you comply with the rules ... one of which seems to be - you cannot opt for 'members only' privacy.

I think its bullshit

Thank you @Lifeless mindset

If you can tell us why do you think that.

 

[Chinaski]

Yeah, Sanctioned Suicide can be visibly only to its members - why should suicide opponents be able to read here? But I think it is almost unbelievable that this website has been around for several years in a world where suicide and human death is taboo.

They can read it anyway. The NYT featured somebody who was literally a member here. Closing it off puts off genuine people from joining and doesn't in any way prevent people we don't like reading the output, however curtailing the more dubious edges of that output does prevent them from being able to weaponise it.

 

[D&D]

Yeah, Sanctioned Suicide can be visibly only to its members - why should suicide opponents be able to read here? But I think it is almost unbelievable that this website has been around for several years in a world where suicide and human death is taboo.

Thank you @NormaJeane

I agree on both counts. There should at least be a 'members only' option. It is rather unbelievable indeed.

And by the way - love your avatar!

 

[Chinaski]

As long as you comply with the rules ... one of which seems to be - you cannot opt for 'members only' privacy.

Members only privacy still allows members of dubious intent, such as "Emma Davis", to read everything you post.

I'll die getting raped to death in some men's prison.

Reported for discussing a method.

 

[Round Two]

Reported for discussing a method.

Are you fucking serious, dude?

 

[D&D]

I completely understand why the admin(s?) have chosen to do this… but I think it'd be cool if the normal discussion forum was brought back, only for members to see. Even if it were to require one to be a member for x amount of time before they could access it.

These pro-lifers are so annoying. It's like the mosquitos that won't leave you alone. It's laughable how they want to censor all people whom are suffering. They want to force us to live in pain. They would NEVER legalize euthanasia either.

These pro-lifers actually make me want to die even more!!!

Thank you @theguineapigking

Please do not let any pro-lifer, or anyone else but yourself and yourself only make any decisions about your life and death.

I agree and it is a good idea to stipulate certain (x) amount of time for 'members only' option.

Thank you.

Honestly, new rules, no new rules, I'm fucking scared. If what I say here gets twisted enough in some investigation and I end up in legal trouble over it, I'll die getting raped to death in some men's prison. With no exaggeration, that is my worst nightmare. It's stupid and paranoid, but even the chance of some crazy shit like that happening has me considering deleting my account.

Thank you @Round Two

What you said its neither 'stupid nor paranoid' - it is why having a 'members only' option would be helpful to many. To ensure some privacy and alleviate countless fears.

 

[Round Two]

What you said its neither 'stupid nor paranoid' - it is why having a 'members only' option would be helpful to many. To ensure some privacy and alleviate countless fears.

But me being afraid of being killed horrifically is apparently "a method".

 

[Chinaski]

Are you fucking serious, dude?

Don't blame me, l don't make the rules.

Mods, MODS!! @MODS!!!

 

[Round Two]

Wow. I never thought I'd get chased out of here by another member making me fucking cry, but here we are, I guess.

 

[D&D]

They can read it anyway. The NYT featured somebody who was literally a member here. Closing it off puts off genuine people from joining and doesn't in any way prevent people we don't like reading the output, however curtailing the more dubious edges of that output does prevent them from being able to weaponise it.

It has been my understanding that the NYT featured those members whose family provided them with material.

Once again - closing it off was never a suggestion. Only creating a 'members only' option. Option does not, per se, equates to closing off. Unless, as I hinted in my post, the fear is that most if not all will use it if offered. Which, if true, raises some other interesting questions. Hence this thread.

Members only privacy still allows members of dubious intent, such as "Emma Davis", to read everything you post.

Reported for discussing a method.

True. But only if and when they become members themselves. Which, in my view, is somewhat different to being able to read/copy anything openly or as a lurker.

 

[GentlyFading]

I like having the SS forum public because I lurked for years before joining and benefited a lot, There is always the option to have some forums public while the others are member-only. MyProAna is an eating disorder community that puts the general discussion forum as members only while others are public viewable. It adds a little bit of a buffer.

That being said it's still pretty easy to infiltrate. With how much scrutiny SS is under this news cycle, there're probably a few journalists lurking on sketchy accounts.

I fully support admin's decision to ban any talk of methods. There's a concerning petition by US government officials for the DOJ to investigate this forum. In my state it's a criminal offense to encourage others to commit suicide. Banning the discussion of methods helps protect members from unintentionally incriminating themselves.

 

[Chinaski]

It has been my understanding that the NYT featured those members whose family provided them with material.

Once again - closing it off was never a suggestion. Only creating a 'members only' option. Option does not, per se, equates to closing off. Unless, as I hinted in my post, the fear is that most if not all will use it if offered. Which, if true, raises some other interesting questions. Hence this thread.

As l say, members only option offers no greater degree of security than fully open. Certain members have been here on numerous accounts with very dubious intent, it only takes one of these to gather screenshots of more dubious stuff.

If you're worried about LE then the best protection is to not post anything dubious, which most people already don't. It's not difficult to follow, in the same way nobody posts an N vendor's contact details on here, basic stuff. Bad people are going to join as members to fish for the bad output, members only offers zero protection, a policy around our output offers far more.

 

[D&D]

Wow. I never thought I'd get chased out of here by another member making me fucking cry, but here we are, I guess.

Dear @Round Two

I am sorry you feel that way but please know that, at least I think, it is @Chinaski sense of humour. I do not think he meant any harm. Honestly.

I like having the SS forum public because I lurked for years before joining and benefited a lot, There is always the option to have some forums public while the others are member-only. MyProAna is an eating disorder community that puts the general discussion forum as members only while others are public viewable. It adds a little bit of a buffer.

That being said it's still pretty easy to infiltrate. With how much scrutiny SS is under this news cycle, there're probably a few journalists lurking on sketchy accounts.

I fully support admin's decision to ban any talk of methods. There's a concerning petition by US government officials for the DOJ to investigate this forum. In my state it's a criminal offense to encourage others to commit suicide. Banning the discussion of methods helps protect members from unintentionally incriminating themselves.

Thank you @GentlyFading

Yes, it is that kind of 'buffer' I was talking about.

I am not against the admins' decision, I am only trying to understand why 'buffer' is not even an option.

 

[Chinaski]

Wow. I never thought I'd get chased out of here by another member making me fucking cry, but here we are, I guess.

It was a joke, l didn't mean to cause this degree of offence and l apologise and retract it.

Fwiw you won't go to prison imho and l think you're worrying too much about what you can be jailed for re your output here, which is why l made light of it - l obviously don't know you and this could be a genuine fear for you and l should have considered that, my bad (hugs).

 

[D&D]

As l say, members only option offers no greater degree of security than fully open. Certain members have been here on numerous accounts with very dubious intent, it only takes one of these to gather screenshots of more dubious stuff.

If you're worried about LE then the best protection is to not post anything dubious, which most people already don't. It's not difficult to follow, in the same way nobody posts an N vendor's contact details on here, basic stuff. Bad people are going to join as members to fish for the bad output, members only offers zero protection, a policy around our output offers far more.

I am not worried about LE in the slightest. I have spoken openly (in real life) about the inadequacy and hypocrisy of so called 'suicide prevention' and suffered greatly for it including being bullied. I wrote about that in the same essay too. I stand by my views.

Without going into lengthy discussion about what exactly constitutes 'dubious' in this context, I appreciate what you are saying. Only I do not fully agree with it. To start with if 'members only' option makes no difference - why not at least offer it for the sake of those whose fears might be alleviated by it.

Interestingly enough such details as N vendor's name and similar come from our good, old Dr whose site also host a forum ... for its members only. Paying members that is. Which, I think, is where the real answer is.

 

[NormaJeane]

New rules: "No method talk in this forum" - but SS-members only write, we do not talk. Sanctioned Suicide does not encourage anyone to commit suicide, we help each other in a world where our pets are treated better than humans. It is possible to read about suicide methods in books, so why can people not read about methods on the Internet? If someone commits suicide after reading about suicide methods, these people have chosen to die - it is their responsibility. We all have to die of something!

 

[D&D]

New rules: "No method talk in this forum" - but SS-members only write, we do not talk. Sanctioned Suicide does not encourage anyone to commit suicide, we help each other in a world where our pets are treated better than humans. It is possible to read about suicide methods in books, so why can people not read about methods on the Internet? If someone commits suicide after reading about suicide methods, these people have chosen to die - it is their responsibility. We all have to die of something!

It is not reading about suicide methods that leads people to end their lives. It is what, in their lives, had lead them to first search, then study, then acquire means to end their lives ... a long process during which most, if not all, drop at least some sort of hints about how much they are hurting. To those around them in real life. More often then not to no avail. Once the act is completed, starting a campaign to ban the 'site(s) where methods are discussed' is much easier and more socially acceptable, than looking into a mirror.

 

[callme]

We all have to die of something!

Those authors usually are long-time euthanasia advocates and have legal protection and benefit of the doubt as doctors, and nonetheless, they have probably all been put under scrurnity and filed lawsuits against. At least one of them used an assumed name. We don't have that kind of advantage to the bureaucratic authorities and posting in an open forum where doxing is always possible doesn't help either

such details as N vendor's name and similar come from our good, old Dr whose site also host a forum ... for its members only. Paying members that is. Which, I think, is where the real answer is.

I don't usually, or ever defend him, but he sure must have taken a leap moving his main operation to the Netherlands, since laws in Australia are too bizzare for euthanasia to be advocated, let alone practised. But his intent on operating Exit entirely for profit and money as an end is showing.