General Chat edition: Can I holiday in Indonesia with a Criminal Record?

We did not respond directly to @brian@bekasi informing him on our line of thought, and for this oversight we apologize. There should've been a direct response, and we dropped the ball on this.

Another mod chiming in to apologize for our lack of response.

To be clear, I don't think the moderators believe that every single report requires a personal response. Sometimes the report is so straightforward (spam alert, for example), or so silly (it doesn't happen much here, but back on the old forum we used to have occasional wars among posters who would report each other on the slightest of pretexts), that a response is unnecessary.

But we would like to respond to members who take the time to make a thoughtfully motivated report, as Brian did. The fact that we didn't is because we aren't perfect, and sometimes we fail. We get busy. We sometimes think, "another mod will deal with it" and none of us takes charge of a situation. A culture of consensus is good, but it also makes each of us individually less likely to act.

Anyway, that's not an excuse, just an explanation. I think we'll all use this as a wake-up call to be more careful about sending out personal responses in the future, when someone makes a report like Brian's.
 
Last edited:
Puspawarna said:
Brian, you may not be a Cage member but that is your choice. If you choose not to join, that's fine, but everyone is expected to be civil outside the Cage.
Sorry I am not qualified to be a cager. Happy for you to make an exception. Could you please tell when I have not been civil?

Scooter told the OP to fuck off, and your response was: Thank you finally someone with the "guts" to say what I was thinking. Granted, agreeing with a rude response is one degree removed from proclaiming it yourself. But I read it as you telling the OP to "fuck off", even if slightly indirectly. Is that not what you meant?

Regarding the Cage, all we require for admission is:

How to get access to The Cage:

Access to The Cage is granted in two easy steps:

Step 1: Be a Charter Member OR reach 200 posts and be a member for 2 months.
Step 2: Post "I would like to join The Cage" in this thread.

As I write this, you have 167 posts. Keep talking a bit, and you're there!
 
Scooter told the OP to fuck off, and your response was: Thank you finally someone with the "guts" to say what I was thinking. Granted, agreeing with a rude response is one degree removed from proclaiming it yourself. But I read it as you telling the OP to "fuck off", even if slightly indirectly. Is that not what you meant?

Regarding the Cage, all we require for admission is:



As I write this, you have 167 posts. Keep talking a bit, and you're there!


Please read my posts carefully and everything I said.. I discussed the whole matter with Atlantis and that was the end of the matter.

However as want to continue, let me firstly say I do not use the word FO and certainly never would use in a public post.

Secondly I clearly explained in my posts what my position was in regards to the thread and the original post.

Thirdly as you are a moderator, I would say to you this is not the cage and your language (quoting FO) is inappropriate for moderator noting that you have identified Scooters response as a rude response.

Fourthly I am well aware the cage requirements and I was only responding to directions to me to discuss the matter in the cage.
 
Last edited:
Brian, I don't want to get into a pissing match with you. I respect the ideas you are trying to convey. We do not have to be in lockstep agreement in order to acknowledge the validity of each other's views. Nonetheless, I find it surprising that you will not own your agreement with Scooter and the incivility of his comment.

It is my opinion that if someone else says "fuck off" and you respond with "finally someone with the guts to say what I was thinking," then you are condoning both the sentiment and the language.

As to my quoting "fuck off" outside the Cage, I'm not a shrinking violet and bad language doesn't give me the vapors. There is a huge difference, in my opinion, between telling someone to fuck off, which even in justifiable circumstances is clearly rude, and reporting that someone else said "fuck off," which is merely descriptive.
 
It is my opinion that if someone else says "fuck off" and you respond with "finally someone with the guts to say what I was thinking," then you are condoning both the sentiment and the language.

I said in my previous post I do not want this to continue. I clearly articulated in my the reason why I thought the threat should note have occurred. However, I respect the decision of Atlantis and co to take a different approach and have acknowledge that my report was given due consideration.
I have also acknowledged that Atlantis's reply was not a bad approach.

Please note I was proactive with this threat and expressed my opinion through a report and not a post with the reputation of the forum as my prime motivator.

I would quote the meaning of FO as defined by the collins dictionary is a phrasal verb "Telling someone to FO is an insulting way of telling them to go away".

My mental interupton of Scooters post was simply someone has finally had the "gut" to tell the poster to go away as you have lost your right to deserve the benefit of an answer. Simple as that!

My report and subsequent posts were about why the post, in my mind, should not have occurred. Simple as that!

I do not condone bad language and if you check your reports, I think the only other inappropriate post report I have made is when someone used the C word at the beginning of a post.

I also acknowledge that the forum rules allows the limited use of profound language with the moderators to use personal judgement about the extent of the language. As a moderator you are set the tone for the forum so it is over to you to determine the extent of profound language and what is acceptable on this forum.

My views on language do not necessarily reflect the views of the masses and are the result of a strict anglo/celtic upbring.

I accept that the F word has become as much a part of everyday language as the use the word "bastard" was when I was growing up. The word can have many meanings depending on the choice of adjective.

I would question why you have been concentrating my alleged agreement with " the incivility of his comment" while ignoring the content my posts as well as not admonishing Scooter for the comments. Noting that I don't think there is any reason to admonish him given the nature of the post.

I would also question you accusing me of recreational outrage and telling me I am expected to be civil outside the Cage. Well I have always been civil on this forum and indeed all forums and I certainly do not practice recreational outrage. This is an extremely serious subject and my responses have been based on experience and research.

I am extremely disappointed in your accusations and the fact you have ignored my protest about being accused of this type of conduct. However, your the mediator and the tone and quality of the forum is your responsibility to maintain so that is the last I will comment on these points. I if choose to falsely accuse people whilst ignoring what they actually said sobeit. You are the moderator.

As a final word on the content, I acknowledge that miscarriage of justice has occurred with pedefiles in third world countries. However, the person who submitted this post was a self confessed criminal who was found guilty of sourcing and storing photographs of sexually explicit nature relating to children which were likely used for his own sexual gratification. This is not a crime about accidently hitting on a porn website.

People on the registers particularly in countries such as UK and Australia have been found guilty of crimes relating to sexual contact and registers aim to alert the public as well public officials about them and risks associated with them.

I would have approached this subject one way but the administrator of the forum took a different view. Had he advised me in the first place of the reasons, we would have been all on the same page. He has however provided a much appreciated apology for not keeping me in the loop on an important subject.

My posts have nothing to do with Scooter language, they were simply comments stating my views relating to an extremely important social problem facing us all. The END. Finished.
 
Oh dear, Brian. I'm genuinely sorry to have upset you. Rather than continue a conversation you would like to see end, let me just quote things I already said, to emphasize a couple of points I hope you'll take away from our discussion:


1) I apologize for the fact we mods did not answer your post report:
Another mod chiming in to apologize for our lack of response...we would like to respond to members who take the time to make a thoughtfully motivated report, as Brian did. The fact that we didn't is because we aren't perfect...Anyway, that's not an excuse, just an explanation. I think we'll all use this as a wake-up call to be more careful about sending out personal responses in the future, when someone makes a report like Brian's.

2) I'd like to think we can respect each other despite our disagreement:
Brian, I don't want to get into a pissing match with you. I respect the ideas you are trying to convey. We do not have to be in lockstep agreement in order to acknowledge the validity of each other's views.

So ... peace?
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in the actual offense he committed. Surely clicking on internet porn isn't a crime....or is it? I get porn-spam all the time and have often clicked without thinking...could I be an unwilling criminal?
In the US, all sorts of things can land you on the sexual offender list. Urinating in public, for example...
 
In the US, all sorts of things can land you on the sexual offender list. Urinating in public, for example...

True, and "in public" doesn't mean anything exhibitionist, I know someone put on the list for urinating in a gross alley, behind a dumpster. He just really had to go and there were no good options, so he tried to be very considerate and discrete. Only the back of his head was seen while doing the act, he was reported, and he confessed he was indeed urinating. In hindsight, he could have simply denied it, but he didn't think it would be a big deal.
 
True, and "in public" doesn't mean anything exhibitionist, I know someone put on the list for urinating in a gross alley, behind a dumpster. He just really had to go and there were no good options, so he tried to be very considerate and discrete. Only the back of his head was seen while doing the act, he was reported, and he confessed he was indeed urinating. In hindsight, he could have simply denied it, but he didn't think it would be a big deal.

The circumstance you describe would generally not result in an individual being listed on the sexual offender registry, at least not in most states. The offense would need to be characterized as indecent exposure to result in a listing. Nevertheless, the Human Rights Watch does indicate that their research finds that public urination could rise to a level egregious enough to land the perpetrator on the registry in 13 states. https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-offender-laws-us
 
The circumstance you describe would generally not result in an individual being listed on the sexual offender registry, at least not in most states. The offense would need to be characterized as indecent exposure to result in a listing. Nevertheless, the Human Rights Watch does indicate that their research finds that public urination could rise to a level egregious enough to land the perpetrator on the registry in 13 states. https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-offender-laws-us

I followed your link and the footnote for those 13 states, yes, this occurred in one of those 13. I also googled for a bit more information, it seems there was no proper "public urination" crime so they got lumped into "indecent exposure", and the indecent exposure crime specifies that no audience/victim is necessary, only the possibility that the person's genitalia could be seen. This friend's case was probably 10 years ago, from initial research it seems they have cleared the legal situation up in recent years to make public urination a separate crime that doesn't involve the offenders list. I haven't followed up with my friend to see if he is cleared from the list or could petition to be removed.
 
So the most important question here is can I say fuc# off or not . Sorry I'm a sick puppy

Now a couple of quick points.
Frist off he didn' urinate in public he was collecting child porno.

Second he said he was addicted to it and as a addict myself I can say you are never cured you are alwas working on your sobriety. A addicton is for life.

Third I belive country's are right in trying to prevent child abuse from happening in their country . Its not their fault you made a mistake but it would be if you slipped and fiddled with a little boy.

Fourth I think it was handled fine with out hate or malice. Just a NO THANK YOU ITS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

Fifth and last thing. Fuck off......Just kidding
 
Last edited:
And u guys bitch and moan a month after the guy posted his question....Hope it made you feel better.

I still stand by my sentiment.
Kind of a pity as I haven't logged on for a while however if I had read his post a month ago when it was first posted I would still have expressed my thoughts.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Follow Us

Latest Expat Indo Articles

Latest Tweets by Expat Indo

Latest Activity

New posts Latest threads

Online Now

No members online now.

Newest Members

Forum Statistics

Threads
6,749
Messages
113,873
Members
4,041
Latest member
Mohammad
Back
Top Bottom