The contents of this blog have been moved from the original site-policy <a href="http://www.naktiv.net/blog/824/on-and-off-site-related-behaviour/">blog</a>, because people were confusing the actual issue with the hot-topic example. Here is the original blog content:
The moderators sometimes receive reports concerning members off-site activities, and it's probably useful to clarify site policy on this point. We are not the FBI and have neither the interest, nor the resources to police people's behaviour off-site. Policy has always been that we are concerned with member behaviour on THIS site, and not on any other.
Let's take a specific case in hand. Brian Taylor was not just accused, but also convicted in court, of downloading paedophile images. Here is one of the many <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760633/Naturist-claimed-nudity-does-not-equal-pornography-admits-downloading-120-000-child-abuse-images.html">national news reports</a> For naturism and nudism folk, this is quite an eye-opener. Not only was did he plead guilty to the charged offence, he was also the official Public Relations officer for British Naturism! One's jaw quite simply drops.
The question is not whether this person, who has recently joined, is guilty or not, but whether he should remain a member of this site, knowing what we know. The administration has received several reports from concerned members regarding this individual, and is under a deal of pressure to remove him. A mild form of emotional duress is being used in the form of: "do you want the site to be a place where this kind of person is welcome?", and "if he stays, I'm off", and so forth. We have the same reaction from site users when they see someone on a soft-porn site elsewhere. Apparently it's ok to pose naked in front of your toilet and snap a headless-selfie, but it's not acceptable to be openly paid to "model" when you're young and pretty. Again, the comments are: "we don't want this kind of person here", and so forth. Don't be too hasty with the knee-jerk, there are ramifications here.
Let's think about this for a moment, Back to Brian. He's here under his own name, and is standing unashamed with these hefty charges hanging around his neck, what does that tell us about him? Is he a man who gets a kick out of watching child porn? Is he a "real" paedophile? Is he a priest or a politician? Amongst the latter there is a terror of being discovered; the public shame of the anti-gay lobbyist being found to be sending soliciting emails to younger male members of his staff; the embarrassment of the priest not only being discovered with the choir boys, but being shunted from parish to parish as he is rediscovered in each parish. There seems no shame in the act itself, only in the fact of being exposed. You might notice that the most judgemental types, the ones you do not suspect, are the ones who seem to constantly being caught with their fingers in dark places.
These judgemental types are the ones who will sack a school teacher because she once appeared in a porno movie when she was younger. Never mind the students who downloaded the porn in the first place and exposed her, never mind the idea that people can change their lifestyle, and should be encouraged to change rather than kicked back down the stairs. Keep in mind also that looking at images is NOT the same as engaging in those acts, just think of all the theft and rape and murder TV series, and the actors involved who are "acting", and NOT doing. Hold that thought in your mind, and now think of all the people who just WATCH these films.
Or perhaps because this man likes to look at these images, and we can easily imagine him doing such and such, then we just tar him all over with the same general brush, make the story bigger than it already is, and call him an actual paedophile and be done with it. Maybe it's simpler to drag him from his house and just hang him from a lamp post on the street corner, while we're at it. If he was black and if we were in the southern US a couple of decades ago, that would be the answer, for sure.
So, back to Brian, and remember that he is just being used as the example here. Let's say he decides the public pressure is too much, and he leaves of his own accord, or he is banned from this site by a moderator, and our consciences are saved, and we can sleep easy once more. Let's say a new site member joins under the name "Patrick Smith". Now then, how are we to know that this new user is not the old user under a different name? Now Patrick Smith can go around befriending unsuspecting people all day long, he can request "innocent" family photos from other unsuspecting and gullible site users. He can promote the idea that family nudism is the "right way", and propose that this is the direction the site should be taking, perhaps influencing the membership in this nefarious direction. How would we know?
Is it not better to KNOW who this man is, and to know what he has done, and to be able to keep an eye on his behaviour here? Keep in mind that there are several moderators, and many members of BN, who all know Brian quite well, in one capacity or another. They know who he is and will be quick to ban him on the first wrong move, and he knows that too. The question is whether we are more comfortable with our heads in the sand, pretending that everything is ok, or whether we would rather have the information, open and available to all. One expects he will be blocked and ignored by many members, but just bear in mind that this is possible ONLY because you know who he is.
To recap, site policy is concerned with behaviour on THIS site, and this site only.
This touchy topic is open to discussion.