Would you list this kind of free site.

[Claude]

Hi there,
I know that a lot of the linklists have rules wanting a free site with a warningpage (with enter link), a main page, and 2 galleries (no more than 30 pics total and 20 minimum).

I don´t like these site, I would rather make a few good sites and then work on the linktrades building good stable traffic to 5-10 sites and "give them some love" :-)

Would you guys links a site like this:
http://www.bizarcentral.com/freebig/jennilee/

It doesn´t follow the usual well known format, but I like this one a lot better than the standard cookie-cutter sites.
As a link list owner I would prefer these kind of sites instead of the regular ones.

What do you say, will you list it, if I submit it ?

(I have 6 sites that I would like to put some effort into - pretty much the same format as this one but different designs - 150-210 each).

[RawAlex]

Claude, your sites have penetration with bondage (restraint) which would put you into the category for me called "against the law" where I am located. You really should never have these types of images out where they can be seen openly.

You can tie someone up, you can do whatever bondage tricks you want, you can do almost any BDSM thing you want (short of pure humiliation), but you cannot have penetration (by man or machine) while the girl is unable to avoid the sex act. In my country, that is non-consentual sex, also known as rape.

Your off links to bestiality, scat, and other very marginal sites are another flag, it is this type of stuff that most link lists won't link to intentionally. You also open those links in new windows.

Your domain registration info also makes it VERY hard to list you sites.

Registrant:
DI
Hjoerring
Hjoerring
Hjoerring, hjoerring 9800
DK
004598911546


Domain Name: BIZARCENTRAL.COM

Administrative Contact:
DI, DI webmaster@digitalimage.dk
Hjoerring
Hjoerring
Hjoerring, hjoerring 9800
DK
004598911546

That type of registration looks like a scam.

As for the idea of giving away that many pics, well, it isn't entirely an unknown concept. However, most link sites will decline a site with more than 50 pics (I say 100, but after 50 it gets less and less likely I will list the site).

If you want to do these type of sites for your own use, I would encourage you to try anything new. However, link sites have rules, and you need to work within those rules to get the chance to get the traffic you want.

However, I would say that considering the content, the registration, and the general impression your stuff gives me, I find it very unlikely you will get many listings.

Alex

[Claude]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Claude, your sites have penetration with bondage (restraint) which would put you into the category for me called "against the law" where I am located. You really should never have these types of images out where they can be seen openly.

You can tie someone up, you can do whatever bondage tricks you want, you can do almost any BDSM thing you want (short of pure humiliation), but you cannot have penetration (by man or machine) while the girl is unable to avoid the sex act. In my country, that is non-consentual sex, also known as rape.
------------------------
I have never had any problems with this content, it´s from http://www.cybernetentertainment.com/ and as far as I know they are very tight with staying within the law.
Also, there are 1000´s of webmasters promoting their sites hogtied.com waterbondage.com etc. etc. see more on their page.
You are the first one to tell that these are illegal or even borderline illegal. I have been told by cybernetentertainment that it´s OK with penetration if it´s only dildo´s or machine (and not genitals). As i said, you are the first one who have ever raised any concerns regarding this content.



Your off links to bestiality, scat, and other very marginal sites are another flag, it is this type of stuff that most link lists won't link to intentionally. You also open those links in new windows.
-------------
At first I wasn´t getting your point here because I don´t have any links to bestiality and scat at all, but the I realized that one of the linklists have a section with scat etc. (not that I have the stomach to look at that shit - pun intented)




Your domain registration info also makes it VERY hard to list you sites.

Registrant:
DI
Hjoerring
Hjoerring
Hjoerring, hjoerring 9800
DK
004598911546


Domain Name: BIZARCENTRAL.COM

Administrative Contact:
DI, DI webmaster@digitalimage.dk
Hjoerring
Hjoerring
Hjoerring, hjoerring 9800
DK
004598911546

That type of registration looks like a scam.
-------------------
I have a company registered as DI (for digital image) perfectly legal - have been registered with my local authorities for 6 years now, no scam there - I can be contacted through the email on the reg info.

Besides, why is it important for a link list that I´m trading traffic with to look at my whois info. Also, I´m looking to TRADE and send traffic back, not just a placement of a cookie cutter site that doesn´t send any traffic back.



As for the idea of giving away that many pics, well, it isn't entirely an unknown concept. However, most link sites will decline a site with more than 50 pics (I say 100, but after 50 it gets less and less likely I will list the site).
----------------------------
I understand your point but as a linklist owner I would rather have 5 good sites with 200 pics that send me back traffic instead of 1000 sites with 20 pics, that send little or no traffic back. I know that it gives more pageviews (and ad placements) for the webmaster who made the site, but from the link list owners perspective, I would think that my kind of site would give more "value" to the linklist instead of 1000 crappy sites.



If you want to do these type of sites for your own use, I would encourage you to try anything new. However, link sites have rules, and you need to work within those rules to get the chance to get the traffic you want.

However, I would say that considering the content, the registration, and the general impression your stuff gives me, I find it very unlikely you will get many listings.
---------------------------


Alex

Thank you for your reply, Alex

[RawAlex]

Claude, it took me a minute to spot the replies... replying in a quote gets the comments in a quote, hard to figure out.

First off, for the content, as I said, it might be legal where you are, but it isn't legal where I am. I could list SOME of it, but I couldn't list all of it. You have to be more selective in the content you use to make sure that you can be listed all over, otherwise you are limiting your market (and you lose the chance to say "even more hardcore stuff inside", because you have shown it all on the outside). Don't give link sites a reason to decline you.

Your 2257 notice is not correct, unless you are in fact cybernetentertainment.com - you are showing yourself as the primary producer, which is NOT correct. The domain shows registered to germany, the 2257 shows calilfornia. Again, slightly weird to look at. Don't give link sites a reason to decline you.

As I said, while you might be DI, and it might be registered, sorry, but your domain info looks like crap and I would NEVER list your site as a result. You look like a scammer. Why are you hiding? When a link site owner sees someone hiding, they start to wonder what else is hiding - maybe geo redirects, maybe the site will disappear in a couple of days... who knows? We have to work from the information we have, and misleading or dishonest looking info is enough to make us wonder. Don't give link sites a reason to decline you.

Link sites want MORE sites to list, not less sites. That is the nature of a link site. I don't think you would have any more luck asking a TGP to list these sites either, after all they are just a bunch of galleries, and wouldn't they want 15 galleries instead of 1? You can't wag the dog.

Your sites would be better hubs for traffic extracted from other free site listings.

Alex

[Thumbler]

I think we can summarise this in three words - "No fucking way"

[Ann Omness]

I'd list a site like that. All the galleries come from one sponsor who is not being prosecuted for obscenity as far as I know. I didn't see anything in them that has been determined to be illegal in my country. I didn't realize that most links list owners were banning content from that sponsor. I guess that explains why I don't get many submissions of their galleries. I figure Google would link to it, so why shouldn't I?

[RawAlex]

Ann, I would gladly list SOME of the content - it's when there is bondage AND penetration at the same time, the act portrayed in non-consentual sex, and as such, is illegal in Canada. I cannot list sites with those images IN THE OPEN.

I might link to the membership sites that offer this stuff, but not intentionally. I don't review the insides of most paysites (good thing, most of them suck), so I don't know what is inside.

Claude's choice to put this stuff in the open in free galleries doesn't leave me much choice, and I know a number of link sites shy away from this level of extreme bondage sex.

As for "google would list it", google also links to CP, rape, and how to make pipe bombs They do it because they don't review by hand, they don't filter, and they don't look at what they are linking to. Google's linking isn't an indication that a site is legal, and your reviewing sites by hand means that you have little excuse legally for linking to material that is questionable.

Simply put: Can you go to your local adult video store and rent this stuff? Nope. I am fairly sure it isn't community standards in many places... it's up to you, it's your business, after all. I won't list it.

Alex

[Ann Omness]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Simply put: Can you go to your local adult video store and rent this stuff? Nope. I am fairly sure it isn't community standards in many places... it's up to you, it's your business, after all. I won't list it.

Alex

You can't even buy a Playboy magazine in my town. Think I should move? I only review sites to the extent that I can determine if they comply with my listing rules. I can certainly understand why you would not list sites depicting bondage and penetration, since your government has made that illegal. Personally, I won't list sites pretending to depict rape, though I would list sites showing the same pictures if they didn't make that pretense. I think my government still has a long way to go before it starts prosecuting people for linking to questionable sites without any direct financial incentive.

[Wenchy]

Claude - were I running a LL I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to list your site for one reason... too much content! Keep in mind one thing; your goal as a free-site WM is to entice the surfer to purchase a membership at XYZ paysite. You're giving away so much free content, the motivation to pull out the CC and make a purchase is completely gone and I'd be willing to be you won't make any money on sites like that.

My advice would be to not use the pics showing the penetration, as I am aware that is an issue in some locations. Instead, I would suggest using strictly the bondage content and then utilizing your marketing and sales skills to sell memberships based on what's inside the paysite... in this particular case, the bondage WITH penetration. Cut your site down to 20 or 30 pics, beef up your sales text, and you should be good to go. You've got at least as many free sites there as you have galleries... pull them apart and make them work for you :-)

As for the WhoIS info, I'm not going to touch that, although I have to admit what Alex posted (Hi Alex!) does look suspicious even to me, and I'm not looking to post your sites.

FYI - I'm not a LL owner, but I have done my time as a reviewer for a couple of biggies so I know the drill. Have a good one!

[ronnie]

The site does look nice, I'll say that. But gives away too much.

You have to remember, there are so many people that only want to scam and make a quick buck. So trying to stay ahead of the game, such as alex mentioned, checking the whois, some times helps. Also as stated, if your really legit, why hide?

ronnie

[RawAlex]

Ann, let me ask you a simple question: As part of your review, do you check to make sure that some, many, or all of the images and galleries actually work? Do those images get displayed on your screen? Have you seen them? Having seen them, and having seen non-consentual sex acts portrayed, you would still list the site?

http://www.bizarcentral.com/freebig/.../gallery14.php

I don't see much consentual in this gallery at all. I see a rape scene. I am sure that most normal citizens (and the members of your community) on seeing it would say "what the heck would you want people to see pictures of a rape?" or "Did they catch the guy?".

It's a matter of judgement, and I can tell you my judgement on it is simple.

Wave to Wenchy!

Alex

[natalie]

Theres no way I would list the example RawAlex just gave! I promote some of cybernetbucks sites but theres a limit you know... Claude it took me a while to get used to the rigidity (is that a word lol) of free sites when I started. But as I learnt more I realised that there are reasons for rules and some of them have to do with YOU and US EARNING MONEY.. we don't do this biz for fun (usually). The reasons that RawAlex and Wenchy have given stand at my linklists too. We don't write the rules because we are bored lol.

[Ann Omness]

RawAlex, I do click on a few images in each gallery to make sure they work when I review. As far as seeing those pictures as non-consentual sex, I did not. Different perspective, I guess. I was involved in the bdsm community for many years and saw a lot of that sort of thing at play parties. It was all consentual and the submissives loved it. I imagine that you're probably right, that anyone who hasn't experimented with domination and submission would probably think that those pictures depict something abusive.

[RawAlex]

Ann, that is the problem - you feel you know it to be consentual. You are adding context to the image that is just not there.

The gallery I posted is a rape, pure and simple. Without your adding context to it, there is no way to know if it is or isn't consentual. I can't list no consentual acts just because I "think it's play". I have no way to know, and you don't either.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/P...R-Ragsdale.pdf

Still think it's okay? The government doesn't think so.

Alex

[plateman]

I read that case with the link you posted, I could say that those vids were sold as rape and the hogtied gallery while themed as bondage may have crossed the line and for free content shouldn't have shown penetration in that type of setting.. And I could say that most LL link to questionable material and dont even know it..

[Ann Omness]

RawAlex, Hogtied/Cybernetbucks doesn't rape women to get their content. The context they provide for their sites is that of consentual domination and submission. In the Ragsdale case you cited, the Ragsdales described their content as depicting real rapes. I doubt if they were (or they would have been prosecuted for rape), but that's the context the Ragsdales provided. We all have to draw our own line in the grey areas. Your line is easy because your government drew it for you - no bondage in conjunction with penetration. Personally, I would not MAKE a site like that, but I don't see much risk in accepting links to them. If my government decided to go after those sites, they'd target the content producers and the actual owners of the sites long before they'd think about trying to prosecute those who simply linked to them.

[RawAlex]

Ann, again, you are inserting "context" into something that the government sees as black and white (and most of the general public does as well, I suspect). Look at the gallery AS POSTED. Forget what you personally know. Look at it like an FBI agent, or one of the AG's crack cyber lawyers would look at it. What do you see?

I don't for a second suggest that hotied/cybernetbucks is raping women to make content, but you are adding in a bunch of context that just isn't there in this gallery, and as a link site owner, I have to look at the material AS PRESENTED and I decide to decline it (and I decline many drunk sex sites for similar reasons, lack of consent portrayed).

it isn't just about "what will get you arrested", but also personal issues. Would you like some perv to learn from you link site how to rape women? Would you like them to think it is acceptable because you reviewed it and linked it? If everyone just said "everything is fine, nothing matters", what sort of sites would we all run?

Slippery slope.

Alex

[Verbal]

Some good discussion going on here.
Everyone has their own lines to draw on what they'll list, due to various laws and morals, etc. I probably would not list the site because rape could be inferred as RawAlex argued. However, as Ann said, the content producers and paysite owners would go down long before they came after you for having a link to them.

[Ann Omness]

RawAlex, when I look at those pictures I see a woman in bondage being carried around and being penetrated with a sex toy. That's all. You're seeing lack of consent. Aren't you the one inserting an unintended context? The "AG's crack cyber lawyers" would probably view the pics in whatever light promotes their particular agenda at the moment. If they want to make a rape case, they'll have to contact the holder of record for the pics and interview the models since the gallery itself is not attempting to add that context to it.

I don't understand why we're arguing about this. You can't link to content like that because it's illegal in your country. In my country, it's still legal to tie up your sex partner if that's what turns her on. It's even legal in Texas now to have anal sex. Oddly though, it's illegal in 3 of the southern states to own a vibrator. I think the secret goal of the politicians may be to deny orgasms to women.