Year In Review
Just another random posting. Figured folks might be interested in what drew people here in 2009. Yeah, it's about 3 weeks late, but better than posting it in June, right? :)
Top 10 Google Search Queries
1. "empire of the iguanadons" - Why people would specifically search for the title of the site is beyond me. But they did, and in large numbers.
2. "medievia" - Not as much of a surprise given where links to my site show up most. I expect this won't be nearly as prominent in 2010.
3. "iguanadons" - I think these show up here largely because it's a common typo for Iguanodon, a type of dinosaur. Though I'm probably a dinosaur in my own right.
4. "oblivion plugins" - Shouldn't come as a great shock to anyone who has followed more recent postings. What's shocking is that it rose so quickly from complete obscurity in 2008.
5. "iguanas" - The pictures alone probably draw these in.
6. "empire iguanadons" - Lump these in with #1 really.
7. "lakota" - It's like the Energizer Bunny of blog posts. People are still linking it in droves, and people still show up here in searches for it.
8. "2009 obama agenda survey" - This one surprises me mainly because I can't be the only person to have posted something on it.
9. "9/11/01/2996" - This is what I get for using things like this in movie reviews. No, you conspiracy theory nuts, the post has nothing to do with 9/11. (Oh jeez, just wait, the 2010 figures will be off the chart for it now!)
10. "mudbytes" - In two short months, it lept up from nowhere to the #10 slot. I doubt I need to explain why.
Top 10 Visited Pages
1. The root node. Which I guess is good, because it means a lot of people are showing up from links to that.
2. Lakota Independence Perhaps the reason the topic won't die is because there's a surprisingly large number of people linking into that specific page.
3. MudBytes Backstabbers From non-existence to 3rd most visited page here. Jesus people. Maybe just a reflection on today's culture over all that a rant post rockets to such popularity in so short a time. 2 1/2 months. Amazing.
4. Thought Police I hardly expected that topic to register with very many people. I guess I was wrong. Though partial credit has to go to #3 for this one since several anons skewed the figures.
5. The downloads page. It's not like I have a lot here folks, but you guys sure seem to love it all the same!
6. The image gallery, and further broken down, over 95% of you are sifting through the Oblivion stuff. Which isn't a surprise since it makes up the largest chunk.
7. The Medievia page. No doubt heavily visited due to how heavily sig-linked it is. Yes, I deliberately linked the keyword to the page URL. I'm just that mean.
8. Saviors of Cyrodiil That one goes back quite a long way and yet seems to have gained quite the following for some reason.
9. My Radeon 4870 X2 review/rant. I must have done something right, or got someone's attention somewhere because a whole bunch of people have read it.
10. Fallout 3 I guess more people than I figured ended up reading it.
I won't bother listing referral sites since they're all from image searches. Except for the #1 slot, which Dwip can take a bow for as my most frequent referral source :)
Oh, and hey, all you lurkers, speak up. Say something! We don't bite. Much.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil
Well. I guess that's that then.
@Samson: You do raise a valid point about it being more about the censorship than the porn issue and that our own government may well be thinking in terms of 'if it works over there, we can do it too', which would be cause for all the Australian hoopla to be worth observation for us, but Fury's also got an equally valid point about the censorship we all take for granted already - more on that in my response to him though.
@The_Fury: I suppose you might be correct about the aims, but I agree that targeting all sites featuring small breasted women seems more than a little overkill. As for the female ejaculation, I would assume that their actual aim is upon those sites which feature oddities of women ejaculating in fountains (spraying rather than dripping, if you will) and such. You do raise a valid point about the censorship in our daily lives receiving a mostly blind eye though, but I think you're taking part of your argument too far. Porn has always been censored from regular television (at least in the US) and that is actually steadily being eroded at by Hollywood at an almost alarming rate. Once upon a time it was totally taboo to even use curse words on television, let alone imply that even a married couple would share a bed, now we get curse words in even kid shows and we're bordering on full frontal nudity for males and females on shows that barely give parental warnings for the kids. As for pay TV, they only don't allow "hardcore" porn and that seems to be limited to anal entry and special oddities like bestiality and child porn from what I've seen, but most of the time you have to subscribe to "adult" channels to even get graphic sex scenes, though HBO and Showtime (etc.) frequently come within a hair of it and late at night even those have shows featuring completely nude porn 'stars' acting as MC. We won't even get into what gets into the theaters these days. The biggest reason the internet has remained as "free" as it has so far is the dispute about who has jurisdiction over what aspects of it. If the planet's collective governments ever either become a single entity or able to collaborate enough to determine who's going to be able to enforce laws over the internet, even the internet will likely become as regulated as television, quite possibly worse. (Incidentally, the availability of hard core porn in grocery stores and dvd stores, as near as I can tell, is a decision made by the management/ownership of the individual store in question based primarily upon what sort of clientèle they prefer rather than any legalities at all, since you mentioned it, at least in this country.)
@The_Fury: I suppose you might be correct about the aims, but I agree that targeting all sites featuring small breasted women seems more than a little overkill. As for the female ejaculation, I would assume that their actual aim is upon those sites which feature oddities of women ejaculating in fountains (spraying rather than dripping, if you will) and such. You do raise a valid point about the censorship in our daily lives receiving a mostly blind eye though, but I think you're taking part of your argument too far. Porn has always been censored from regular television (at least in the US) and that is actually steadily being eroded at by Hollywood at an almost alarming rate. Once upon a time it was totally taboo to even use curse words on television, let alone imply that even a married couple would share a bed, now we get curse words in even kid shows and we're bordering on full frontal nudity for males and females on shows that barely give parental warnings for the kids. As for pay TV, they only don't allow "hardcore" porn and that seems to be limited to anal entry and special oddities like bestiality and child porn from what I've seen, but most of the time you have to subscribe to "adult" channels to even get graphic sex scenes, though HBO and Showtime (etc.) frequently come within a hair of it and late at night even those have shows featuring completely nude porn 'stars' acting as MC. We won't even get into what gets into the theaters these days. The biggest reason the internet has remained as "free" as it has so far is the dispute about who has jurisdiction over what aspects of it. If the planet's collective governments ever either become a single entity or able to collaborate enough to determine who's going to be able to enforce laws over the internet, even the internet will likely become as regulated as television, quite possibly worse. (Incidentally, the availability of hard core porn in grocery stores and dvd stores, as near as I can tell, is a decision made by the management/ownership of the individual store in question based primarily upon what sort of clientèle they prefer rather than any legalities at all, since you mentioned it, at least in this country.)
Censorship of nudity in this country is dictated by the obscenity laws on the books, and the Supreme Court has rules that the guidelines used to define it are legal. Network TV not showing it isn't the same as blanket blocking it from being shown anywhere at all, which is basically what the Aussie government is trying to do.
When we reach the point of the government simply saying "porn is banned" I guarantee you the reaction to that won't be so ho-hum from US citizens because we're not as dumb as we look
When we reach the point of the government simply saying "porn is banned" I guarantee you the reaction to that won't be so ho-hum from US citizens because we're not as dumb as we look
I guess the laws are different in the USA, here in Aussie, pay tv can only show R rated soft porn that you can rent from the local video store and its an extra subscription/pay per view type thing, if you want X rated then you have to go to a sex shop to buy or rent it like a regular video.
I guess my point is, nobody objects to censorship being applied to porn in ways to restrict access only to adults in our suburban shops, TV and print media, but for some reason, they object when the same rules are applied to internet based media. I do not see a government applying censorship rules to internet or computer based content as an erosion of my freedoms. The internet grows as such a fast pace that any rules and regulations are going to be years out of date at the time they are introduced, and the technical feasibility of implementing such actions is also highly questionable.
I guess my point is, nobody objects to censorship being applied to porn in ways to restrict access only to adults in our suburban shops, TV and print media, but for some reason, they object when the same rules are applied to internet based media. I do not see a government applying censorship rules to internet or computer based content as an erosion of my freedoms. The internet grows as such a fast pace that any rules and regulations are going to be years out of date at the time they are introduced, and the technical feasibility of implementing such actions is also highly questionable.
Well unless I'm mistaken here somewhere, doesn't Australia already have legal age restrictions on viewing porn on the internet? I know we do here in the US, you have to be over 18 to legally view it. That's for all types btw. (Why do I get the feeling this discussion should have been its own topic)
The way I'm understanding this Australian censorship action is that they're attempting to make it illegal to view the two types of mentioned porn at all regardless of your age. There's nothing particularly bad about either one compared to some things you can dig up out there.
If they wanted to start somewhere, why not with porn of people screwing animals, porn of people peeing or shitting on each other, or vomit porn? You'd be hard pressed to get anyone who could argue those have any redeeming social value. The gross factor alone would silence all but the most anarchistic internet users.
The way I'm understanding this Australian censorship action is that they're attempting to make it illegal to view the two types of mentioned porn at all regardless of your age. There's nothing particularly bad about either one compared to some things you can dig up out there.
If they wanted to start somewhere, why not with porn of people screwing animals, porn of people peeing or shitting on each other, or vomit porn? You'd be hard pressed to get anyone who could argue those have any redeeming social value. The gross factor alone would silence all but the most anarchistic internet users.
Link To Legislation
That is the legislation being used here, so it has nothing to do with breast size purse but as i originally suspected that it had everything to do with censorship of sudo child porn. Breast size is just one factor begin used in determining a persons apparent age, as it is the apparent age of the person depicted that is important here, not the legal age. So a 21 year old woman who is being depicted as 14 years of age in a porn film will find that film is refused classification, IE banned from the market place, the government plans to push this further to include internet media as well.
The rest of it, from what i can read in the newspapers and on blogs is that its mostly a beat up by EFFA who see any kind of regulation of the internet as an infraction in their self held belief of having intrinsic rights to do whatever they like on the internet.
The government also held talks with google to get them to censor out information to other illegal activities under Australian law, as they do for China, google refused, which kind of shows their hypocrisy.
Most of those, if not all of them are already refused classification under the current act, and as such will be apart of this internet censorship plan. And i agree with you whole heatedly, those sorts of acts hold no redeeming social value whatsoever at all.
And yes, this does deserve its own thread seems this one has been hijacked by a totally irrelevant topic.
(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or
(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be , a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or
(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence
(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be , a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or
(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence
That is the legislation being used here, so it has nothing to do with breast size purse but as i originally suspected that it had everything to do with censorship of sudo child porn. Breast size is just one factor begin used in determining a persons apparent age, as it is the apparent age of the person depicted that is important here, not the legal age. So a 21 year old woman who is being depicted as 14 years of age in a porn film will find that film is refused classification, IE banned from the market place, the government plans to push this further to include internet media as well.
The rest of it, from what i can read in the newspapers and on blogs is that its mostly a beat up by EFFA who see any kind of regulation of the internet as an infraction in their self held belief of having intrinsic rights to do whatever they like on the internet.
The government also held talks with google to get them to censor out information to other illegal activities under Australian law, as they do for China, google refused, which kind of shows their hypocrisy.
If they wanted to start somewhere, why not with porn of people screwing animals, porn of people peeing or shitting on each other, or vomit porn? You'd be hard pressed to get anyone who could argue those have any redeeming social value. The gross factor alone would silence all but the most anarchistic internet users.
Most of those, if not all of them are already refused classification under the current act, and as such will be apart of this internet censorship plan. And i agree with you whole heatedly, those sorts of acts hold no redeeming social value whatsoever at all.
And yes, this does deserve its own thread
seems this one has been hijacked by a totally irrelevant topic.The ACB said that Barely Legal, Purely 18 and Finally Legal magazine titles were banned because they contained a person that appeared to be under 18, the Board said some of these issues were Refused Classification (RC refers to items banned for sale in Australia) because they contained offensive depictions of someone who was or appeared to be under 18 years. Other issues were classified RC for offensive fantasies involving rape and incest.
This is what started the uproar, on top of the gov's plan to implement a national internet filter to censor such things that are deemed to be illegal under Australian law.
Sorry for the spam posting, here is an artical from The Age newspaper that outlines what is proposed and in what scope it will cover.
Funny part about that is that I've actually been to barely legal and purely 18 at one time or another in the past and I've never seen anyone there portrayed as under 18. *shrug*
Overall, I'm with you guys on this one, it sounds like they're trying to take existing porn laws and extend them to the internet and someone in the government there offended a group of people by choosing to include certain sites that were not considered offensive to that group.
Either way, it'll be interesting to see the reaction by our government to the idea of a national firewall and the citizen response it provokes in turn...
and, yes, this probably should've been it's own topic already. *shrug*
Overall, I'm with you guys on this one, it sounds like they're trying to take existing porn laws and extend them to the internet and someone in the government there offended a group of people by choosing to include certain sites that were not considered offensive to that group.
Either way, it'll be interesting to see the reaction by our government to the idea of a national firewall and the citizen response it provokes in turn...
and, yes, this probably should've been it's own topic already. *shrug*
Yes, now just imagine if I weren't lazy. The functionality this software could have! Moving existing comments to a new post 
Anyway, yeah, it looks like the Aussies are really just trying to extend current law to cover the internet. So it's just a case of the law finally catching up to technology. I'm still not sure using the "Great Australian Firewall" is the right way to go about this. If it's illegal, bust people for producing it. Filters tend to be overarching in their coverage and often do end up blocking legit content.
Anyway, yeah, it looks like the Aussies are really just trying to extend current law to cover the internet. So it's just a case of the law finally catching up to technology. I'm still not sure using the "Great Australian Firewall" is the right way to go about this. If it's illegal, bust people for producing it. Filters tend to be overarching in their coverage and often do end up blocking legit content.
I'm still not sure using the "Great Australian Firewall" is the right way to go about this
I could not agree more, i am not sure that this is the right approach. Url's change, ip's change, there are a myriad of ways to circumvent the blocking software that companies who peddle in refused classification materials could use to bypass the filters, or like existing kiddy porn, it just gets pushed underground.
Sadly, yes, that's exactly the problem with creating a firewall as your solution, there are just too many ways to get around it and things change, especially for sites that are operating illegally to begin with, so you end up not really stopping what you're trying to block and instead blocking stuff that entirely legitimate folks want to reach for entirely legitimate reasons. 
Banner Posted Dec 2, 2008, 1:56 pm said:
This community is -not- friendly and welcoming. I know I'm not the only person that gets attacked for whatever he does, in fact, I could name a few names. Sure, if everyone agrees with you and you kiss ass, then yes, its friendly and welcoming.
This community is -not- friendly and welcoming. I know I'm not the only person that gets attacked for whatever he does, in fact, I could name a few names. Sure, if everyone agrees with you and you kiss ass, then yes, its friendly and welcoming.
Well.... DUH! That's how moodbites works!
I know I really shouldn't feed into this, but it really depends on whose arse you're kissing. On the other hand, it's definitely not isolated to MudBytes, the whole mud community can be downright vicious at times, just ask someone like Eos if you want confirmation.. In many ways the mud community can be a great resource and lots of fun, but it can also just as easily be very un-community-like too.
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Blog Categories
