Hosting images - Should we or shouldn^t we? page 1
oblivion
20th January 2012, 10:57 PM
There are 2 or 3 discussions that have cropped up about specific vbulletin features that use server-hosting for images. The early decisions/discussions around hosting images were that MR would not host images.
We've modified that policy for avatars, and there has been some support for modifying the policy with respect to profile images and attachments. Today the question of turning vbulletin user gallery feature came up.
I think it would be better to deal with these questions in whole rather than piecemeal. Hence this thread.
attachments and avatars are all visible in threads, so if someone were to upload something that the webhosting company would object to (porn or illegal content), it would be noticed.
Profile pictures are only visible when clicking on someone's profile page. User galleries are similar - the images don't necessarily show up in threads, so an image that could cause MR problems with the webhost might not be discovered very quickly.
Other than that, I don't see much difference in the risks between turning on attachments, profile pictures or user galleries.
Thoughts?
user gallery discussion (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=203).
profile picture discussion (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=101).
attachments discussion (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=90).
In a day or two, after things are flushed out a bit, I'll add a poll to this thread.
We've modified that policy for avatars, and there has been some support for modifying the policy with respect to profile images and attachments. Today the question of turning vbulletin user gallery feature came up.
I think it would be better to deal with these questions in whole rather than piecemeal. Hence this thread.
attachments and avatars are all visible in threads, so if someone were to upload something that the webhosting company would object to (porn or illegal content), it would be noticed.
Profile pictures are only visible when clicking on someone's profile page. User galleries are similar - the images don't necessarily show up in threads, so an image that could cause MR problems with the webhost might not be discovered very quickly.
Other than that, I don't see much difference in the risks between turning on attachments, profile pictures or user galleries.
Thoughts?
user gallery discussion (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=203).
profile picture discussion (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=101).
attachments discussion (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=90).
In a day or two, after things are flushed out a bit, I'll add a poll to this thread.
MSG
21st January 2012, 01:30 AM
Avatars with NSFW content is already a live issue. I have already put a person on ignore for that reason. It's not an issue I'm used to at TR...
oblivion
21st January 2012, 01:34 AM
my approach is going to be turning off avatars, sigs and images when I'm on a work network, and turning them back on when I want to see what people are "wearing".
Jerome
21st January 2012, 01:42 AM
my approach is going to be turning off avatars, sigs and images when I'm on a work network, and turning them back on when I want to see what people are "wearing".
I like that the responsibility is on the user.
I like that the responsibility is on the user.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 01:47 AM
my approach is going to be turning off avatars, sigs and images when I'm on a work network, and turning them back on when I want to see what people are "wearing".
I like that the responsibility is on the user.
Every member has a responsibility to keep what is stored on the server within the webhost's comfort zone. It will come down to the admins' calls on what is illegal or truly pornographic as opposed to NSFW.
I like that the responsibility is on the user.
Every member has a responsibility to keep what is stored on the server within the webhost's comfort zone. It will come down to the admins' calls on what is illegal or truly pornographic as opposed to NSFW.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:02 AM
:rofl:
MSG
21st January 2012, 02:04 AM
well does BrettA's (hosted?) avatar qualify as pornography? coz I'm hard pressed to work out how it couldn't.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:08 AM
who gets to decide what is pornographic?
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:10 AM
http://mindromp.org/forum/image.php?u=77&dateline=1327036801
oblivion
21st January 2012, 02:10 AM
well does BrettA's (hosted?) avatar qualify as
pornography? coz I'm hard pressed to work out how it couldn't.
I'm kinda waiting to see what the other admins have to say about it. IMO it's pretty close to the line, maybe over. In IMG tags, it's no biggie because it's not on the server. as an avatar saved on the server, I dunno.
pornography? coz I'm hard pressed to work out how it couldn't.
I'm kinda waiting to see what the other admins have to say about it. IMO it's pretty close to the line, maybe over. In IMG tags, it's no biggie because it's not on the server. as an avatar saved on the server, I dunno.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:11 AM
I don't think that is. I think that if that is plastered about like a banner it is.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 02:12 AM
who gets to decide what is pornographic?
ultimately, the web host. and they can pull the rug out from under the site if they decide we're using it to host pornography.
ultimately, the web host. and they can pull the rug out from under the site if they decide we're using it to host pornography.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:20 AM
Well, then what is their standard?
oblivion
21st January 2012, 02:23 AM
I'm. phoneposting atm. i'll post their blurb when I'm back on the laptop.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 02:53 AM
Content
All services provided by Liquid Web, Inc. are to be used for lawful purposes only. Transmission, storage, or presentation of any information, data or material in violation of any United States Federal, State or Local law is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to: copyrighted material, material we judge to be threatening or obscene, material that jeopardizes national security, or material protected by trade secret or other laws. The subscriber agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Liquid Web, Inc., from any claims resulting from the subscriber's use of Liquid Web's services which damages the subscriber or any other party.
Note: Pornography and sex related merchandising are prohibited on any Liquid Web, Inc. shared account. This includes sites that may imply sexual content, or link to adult content elsewhere. This is also true for sites that promote any illegal activity or content that may be damaging to Liquid Web servers or any other server on the Internet. Links to such materials are also prohibited.
:nada:
All services provided by Liquid Web, Inc. are to be used for lawful purposes only. Transmission, storage, or presentation of any information, data or material in violation of any United States Federal, State or Local law is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to: copyrighted material, material we judge to be threatening or obscene, material that jeopardizes national security, or material protected by trade secret or other laws. The subscriber agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Liquid Web, Inc., from any claims resulting from the subscriber's use of Liquid Web's services which damages the subscriber or any other party.
Note: Pornography and sex related merchandising are prohibited on any Liquid Web, Inc. shared account. This includes sites that may imply sexual content, or link to adult content elsewhere. This is also true for sites that promote any illegal activity or content that may be damaging to Liquid Web servers or any other server on the Internet. Links to such materials are also prohibited.
:nada:
Jerome
21st January 2012, 02:59 AM
Right, got it. Thanks! :)
charlou
21st January 2012, 04:58 AM
I wish I'd read that before we chose to use this server. I did raise this issue when we were discussing it on the discuss forum. If we are a site that promotes free expression, imo that includes being able to post text and images that may be viewed as pornographic. If the server is going to have a problem with it, I think we need to try to find a different server.
WRT Brett's avatar, I have no problem with it. MSG, I find it amusing that you have a concern about it, given what your own avatar depicts. ;)
WRT Brett's avatar, I have no problem with it. MSG, I find it amusing that you have a concern about it, given what your own avatar depicts. ;)
MSG
21st January 2012, 04:59 AM
it's arguably disturbing that you don't draw a distinction :p
charlou
21st January 2012, 05:04 AM
it's arguably disturbing that you don't draw a distinction :p
Human genitalia is much more appealing, true .. unless you're a Welshman (apparently) :D
Human genitalia is much more appealing, true .. unless you're a Welshman (apparently) :D
charlou
21st January 2012, 05:08 AM
Anyway, Brett's avatar is art .. as is all the work I've seen of his. We have no control over how people respond to these things. (Nor would I want to ;) )
Jerome
21st January 2012, 05:11 AM
What if a 12 year old starts posting here?
oblivion
21st January 2012, 05:17 AM
I wish I'd read that before we chose to use this server. I did raise this issue when we were discussing it on the discuss forum. If we are a site that promotes free expression, imo that includes being able to post text and images that may be viewed as pornographic. If the server is going to have a problem with it, I think we need to try to find a different server.
WRT Brett's avatar, I have no problem with it. MSG, I find it amusing that you have a concern about it, given what your own avatar depicts. ;)
What the webhost actually cares about is what is stored on their servers. warez, porn, pirated music, etc., on the hosted machine is the deal breaker.
your art distinction is cool, especially given the level of detail in a 140x140 px image. I think we might run into issues if we opened up the gallery functionality, though.
WRT Brett's avatar, I have no problem with it. MSG, I find it amusing that you have a concern about it, given what your own avatar depicts. ;)
What the webhost actually cares about is what is stored on their servers. warez, porn, pirated music, etc., on the hosted machine is the deal breaker.
your art distinction is cool, especially given the level of detail in a 140x140 px image. I think we might run into issues if we opened up the gallery functionality, though.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 05:19 AM
I agree that there is no need for a gallery.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 05:20 AM
What if a 12 year old starts posting here?
if a person indicates they are 12 in the registration process, their registration is turned down. If they try to re-register with a different age from the same device, they will continue to be turned down.
that's all that any site can do to prevent 12 year olds from posting.
if a person indicates they are 12 in the registration process, their registration is turned down. If they try to re-register with a different age from the same device, they will continue to be turned down.
that's all that any site can do to prevent 12 year olds from posting.
charlou
21st January 2012, 05:46 AM
I wish I'd read that before we chose to use this server. I did raise this issue when we were discussing it on the discuss forum. If we are a site that promotes free expression, imo that includes being able to post text and images that may be viewed as pornographic. If the server is going to have a problem with it, I think we need to try to find a different server.
WRT Brett's avatar, I have no problem with it. MSG, I find it amusing that you have a concern about it, given what your own avatar depicts. ;)
What the webhost actually cares about is what is stored on their servers. warez, porn, pirated music, etc., on the hosted machine is the deal breaker.
For me, coming from rationalia and being interested in free expression wrt sexual content, anything less is a backwards step.
I hope we can work something out.
WRT Brett's avatar, I have no problem with it. MSG, I find it amusing that you have a concern about it, given what your own avatar depicts. ;)
What the webhost actually cares about is what is stored on their servers. warez, porn, pirated music, etc., on the hosted machine is the deal breaker.
For me, coming from rationalia and being interested in free expression wrt sexual content, anything less is a backwards step.
I hope we can work something out.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 05:52 AM
I'm kinda confused, I guess. When we talked about this during the planning phase, the idea at the tiime was to allow links, including img tags, to adult content images, but not to have members store any images on the server. Since going public, we've reconsidered avatars, and other image storage questions have been raised, too.
Jerome
21st January 2012, 05:56 AM
http://i1.cdnds.net/11/39/618_music_george_michael.jpg
charlou
21st January 2012, 06:21 AM
I'm kinda confused, I guess. When we talked about this during the planning phase, the idea at the tiime was to allow links, including img tags, to adult content images, but not to have members store any images on the server. Since going public, we've reconsidered avatars, and other image storage questions have been raised, too.
No worries .. It just seems to be case of different people having a different understanding about it. I'm sure we can talk it out and come up with something.
No worries .. It just seems to be case of different people having a different understanding about it. I'm sure we can talk it out and come up with something.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 06:30 AM
I think so, too. I'm going to sleep on it. Right now, it seems like the simplest approach to unequivocal graphical freedom of expression is the original one - letting members find other alternatives for storing their images.
charlou
21st January 2012, 06:40 AM
I think you're right.
Hermit
21st January 2012, 10:37 AM
Settled then? :]
The issues that have cropped up above are the sort of thing why I have been advocating a no-hosting of graphics policy on this site.
The issues that have cropped up above are the sort of thing why I have been advocating a no-hosting of graphics policy on this site.
nostrum
21st January 2012, 11:37 AM
Avs will be hosted though?
ReBrettA's av, I'll be putting him on ignore because I don't want that av showing on my 27" comp screen with the various people around who look at my screen, but I'm not switching avs off because I like to see people's avs. Personal taste. No admin action required as I see it.
ReBrettA's av, I'll be putting him on ignore because I don't want that av showing on my 27" comp screen with the various people around who look at my screen, but I'm not switching avs off because I like to see people's avs. Personal taste. No admin action required as I see it.
Hermit
21st January 2012, 11:44 AM
Avs will be hosted though?
Some time ago I suggested using a site that hosts avatars, which can then apparently be used in blogs, forums and such. They call them gravatars there. Oblivion was not sure if off-site hosting can be implemented on the v-bulletin platform, and I have not continued with further inquiries myself.
Some time ago I suggested using a site that hosts avatars, which can then apparently be used in blogs, forums and such. They call them gravatars there. Oblivion was not sure if off-site hosting can be implemented on the v-bulletin platform, and I have not continued with further inquiries myself.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 01:27 PM
Avs will be hosted though?
Some time ago I suggested using a site that hosts avatars, which can then apparently be used in blogs, forums and such. They call them gravatars there. Oblivion was not sure if off-site hosting can be implemented on the v-bulletin platform, and I have not continued with further inquiries myself.
I determined that it is possible to use gravatars with vbulletin. I forget exactly why folks wanted to use hosted avatars. something about being able to remove them more easily if the avatar were illegal, I think.
Some time ago I suggested using a site that hosts avatars, which can then apparently be used in blogs, forums and such. They call them gravatars there. Oblivion was not sure if off-site hosting can be implemented on the v-bulletin platform, and I have not continued with further inquiries myself.
I determined that it is possible to use gravatars with vbulletin. I forget exactly why folks wanted to use hosted avatars. something about being able to remove them more easily if the avatar were illegal, I think.
Adenosine
21st January 2012, 01:35 PM
FF has a hack that allows individual avatars and signatures to be hidden. Can we get that?
oblivion
21st January 2012, 01:37 PM
I'm not sure. I think that hack was written expressly for FF.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 01:43 PM
Avs will be hosted though?
Some time ago I suggested using a site that hosts avatars, which can then apparently be used in blogs, forums and such. They call them gravatars there. Oblivion was not sure if off-site hosting can be implemented on the v-bulletin platform, and I have not continued with further inquiries myself.
I determined that it is possible to use gravatars with vbulletin. I forget exactly why folks wanted to use hosted avatars. something about being able to remove them more easily if the avatar were illegal, I think.
^^ I'll need to go back and check - IIRC I couldn't tell if the hack makes it possible to require that all avatars be gravatars, or if you'd have the choice of using a gravatar or a regular avatar stored on the server. If it is a choice, then I'll need to rework the hack a bit.
Some time ago I suggested using a site that hosts avatars, which can then apparently be used in blogs, forums and such. They call them gravatars there. Oblivion was not sure if off-site hosting can be implemented on the v-bulletin platform, and I have not continued with further inquiries myself.
I determined that it is possible to use gravatars with vbulletin. I forget exactly why folks wanted to use hosted avatars. something about being able to remove them more easily if the avatar were illegal, I think.
^^ I'll need to go back and check - IIRC I couldn't tell if the hack makes it possible to require that all avatars be gravatars, or if you'd have the choice of using a gravatar or a regular avatar stored on the server. If it is a choice, then I'll need to rework the hack a bit.
Fuzzy
21st January 2012, 03:11 PM
Note: Pornography and sex related merchandising are prohibited on any Liquid Web, Inc. shared account. This includes sites that may imply sexual content, or link to adult content elsewhere. This is also true for sites that promote any illegal activity or content that may be damaging to Liquid Web servers or any other server on the Internet. Links to such materials are also prohibited.
Sounds like storing it offsite wouldn't help much, unless I am misreading
I'd also like something to block specific avatars. Adblock can prolly accomplish that well enough, though.
Sounds like storing it offsite wouldn't help much, unless I am misreading
I'd also like something to block specific avatars. Adblock can prolly accomplish that well enough, though.
oblivion
21st January 2012, 03:21 PM
Note: Pornography and sex related merchandising are prohibited on any Liquid Web, Inc. shared account. This includes sites that may imply sexual content, or link to adult content elsewhere. This is also true for sites that promote any illegal activity or content that may be damaging to Liquid Web servers or any other server on the Internet. Links to such materials are also prohibited.
Sounds like storing it offsite wouldn't help much, unless I am misreading
I'd also like something to block specific avatars. Adblock can prolly accomplish that well enough, though.
What the contract prevents is someone setting up a portal to other sites dedicated to illegal or pornographic content, as well as prohibiting the set-up of such a site on their servers. Random links to a few images aren't something they care about from a legal liability perspective.
BTW, I got together with Matt to find out if/how this affects RnR's tits and ass threads, and the answer was "It doesn't" as long as the images aren't attachments. The same applies to TR's after hours area, though I didn't realize that if someone attached images to posts rather than using IMG tags that we'd be technically in violation of Matt's contract.
Sounds like storing it offsite wouldn't help much, unless I am misreading
I'd also like something to block specific avatars. Adblock can prolly accomplish that well enough, though.
What the contract prevents is someone setting up a portal to other sites dedicated to illegal or pornographic content, as well as prohibiting the set-up of such a site on their servers. Random links to a few images aren't something they care about from a legal liability perspective.
BTW, I got together with Matt to find out if/how this affects RnR's tits and ass threads, and the answer was "It doesn't" as long as the images aren't attachments. The same applies to TR's after hours area, though I didn't realize that if someone attached images to posts rather than using IMG tags that we'd be technically in violation of Matt's contract.
Fuzzy
21st January 2012, 04:08 PM
I'm violating Matt's contract on RnR, then
oblivion
21st January 2012, 04:08 PM
:ohmy:
Fuzzy
21st January 2012, 04:11 PM
These are all nsfw attachments I have uploaded to RnR!!!!
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=587&d=1205926834
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=586&d=1205926818
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=585&d=1205926761
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=378&d=1199750120
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=696&d=1216298915
the last one sucks but the others are good! I'll have to download them all so I won't lose them when Matt finds out
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=587&d=1205926834
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=586&d=1205926818
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=585&d=1205926761
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=378&d=1199750120
http://www.rantsnraves.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=696&d=1216298915
the last one sucks but the others are good! I'll have to download them all so I won't lose them when Matt finds out
oblivion
21st January 2012, 04:13 PM
fuzzy, those aren't porn. :colbert:
way to disappoint.
way to disappoint.
nostrum
21st January 2012, 04:14 PM
:hehe:
Fuzzy
21st January 2012, 04:14 PM
Softcore counts :colbert:
Fuzzy
21st January 2012, 04:15 PM
The bunny one is kinky. It starts with the bunnygirl with nipple bells doing all sorts of bunny things and eating a carrot, then it ends with her tied up in a cage :sadcheer:
I usually pretend the last part of the series doesn't exist
I usually pretend the last part of the series doesn't exist
oblivion
21st January 2012, 07:13 PM
I've installed gravatar to test out how it works. It's turned off for now.
Stuff to think about and decide - here (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6129#post6129).
Stuff to think about and decide - here (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6129#post6129).
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 09:33 PM
I wish I'd read that before we chose to use this server. I did raise this issue when we were discussing it on the discuss forum. If we are a site that promotes free expression, imo that includes being able to post text and images that may be viewed as pornographic. If the server is going to have a problem with it, I think we need to try to find a different server.
WRT Brett's avatar, I have no problem with it. MSG, I find it amusing that you have a concern about it, given what your own avatar depicts. ;)
What the webhost actually cares about is what is stored on their servers. warez, porn, pirated music, etc., on the hosted machine is the deal breaker.
For me, coming from rationalia and being interested in free expression wrt sexual content, anything less is a backwards step.
I hope we can work something out.
One thing I believe we did right at Rationalia (At least initially) was the dissemination of 'classes' of content. There was an image-safe, text-dangerous area (general forum), an image-dangerous NSFW area, and an image and text safe "for work" area.
People could post what they wanted, while others were able to still take part in the forum, without being forced to turn off particular content.
The thing about free expression is, if you have someone posting Brett-A class pictures everywhere, you naturally limit somebody else's ability to participate, at the very least because they're at work.
WRT Brett's avatar, I have no problem with it. MSG, I find it amusing that you have a concern about it, given what your own avatar depicts. ;)
What the webhost actually cares about is what is stored on their servers. warez, porn, pirated music, etc., on the hosted machine is the deal breaker.
For me, coming from rationalia and being interested in free expression wrt sexual content, anything less is a backwards step.
I hope we can work something out.
One thing I believe we did right at Rationalia (At least initially) was the dissemination of 'classes' of content. There was an image-safe, text-dangerous area (general forum), an image-dangerous NSFW area, and an image and text safe "for work" area.
People could post what they wanted, while others were able to still take part in the forum, without being forced to turn off particular content.
The thing about free expression is, if you have someone posting Brett-A class pictures everywhere, you naturally limit somebody else's ability to participate, at the very least because they're at work.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 09:38 PM
the dissemination of 'classes' of content. There was an image-safe, text-dangerous area (general forum), an image-dangerous NSFW area, and an image and text safe "for work" area.
The trouble here is there are now more lines to define.
The trouble here is there are now more lines to define.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 09:47 PM
the dissemination of 'classes' of content. There was an image-safe, text-dangerous area (general forum), an image-dangerous NSFW area, and an image and text safe "for work" area.
The trouble here is there are now more lines to define.
Not really that difficult. If the image isn't appropriate for a work place it goes in to NSFW - and stop thinking about sexual imagery alone, there are so many other things out there.
Text is more innocuous, which is why you have the general area unmediated for words. And for those that don't think either are safe, they have a 'safe for work area' for themselves to engage.
The trouble here is there are now more lines to define.
Not really that difficult. If the image isn't appropriate for a work place it goes in to NSFW - and stop thinking about sexual imagery alone, there are so many other things out there.
Text is more innocuous, which is why you have the general area unmediated for words. And for those that don't think either are safe, they have a 'safe for work area' for themselves to engage.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 10:12 PM
I see what you are getting at.
What are the disadvantages?
What are the disadvantages?
oblivion
22nd January 2012, 10:18 PM
the disadvantages will be the need to move threads and posts from one area to another, based on the swf-ness of the content. people who mostly access via search often don't notice where they are posting.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 10:36 PM
I see what you are getting at.
What are the disadvantages?
From a practical level, I'm not entirely sure what disadvantages there are. Nothing is really being cut out, and the maintenance of these areas isn't particularly strenuous.
The only real problem with the system at Rationalia was when some people refused to acknowledge the NSFW content of a string of images because they kept thinking from a personal, not a workplace, perspective.
What are the disadvantages?
From a practical level, I'm not entirely sure what disadvantages there are. Nothing is really being cut out, and the maintenance of these areas isn't particularly strenuous.
The only real problem with the system at Rationalia was when some people refused to acknowledge the NSFW content of a string of images because they kept thinking from a personal, not a workplace, perspective.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 10:38 PM
@ Raven
That will not work then, we don't have staff.
That will not work then, we don't have staff.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 10:46 PM
@ Raven
That will not work then, we don't have staff.
If I post a history topic in the politics section, it gets moved to history.
I don't see how this is any different. Nothing is being cut out or censored. It's still viewable, just in a specific area.
The primary problem (which I just thought of ) is that a thread may cross topics. It may be primarily historical, but contain images that are not safe for a professional environment. It would be unreasonable to expect a SFW/NSFW for every particular topic, and it isn't fair for a genuinely historical post to be lost against the mire of fairly trivial postings.
That will not work then, we don't have staff.
If I post a history topic in the politics section, it gets moved to history.
I don't see how this is any different. Nothing is being cut out or censored. It's still viewable, just in a specific area.
The primary problem (which I just thought of ) is that a thread may cross topics. It may be primarily historical, but contain images that are not safe for a professional environment. It would be unreasonable to expect a SFW/NSFW for every particular topic, and it isn't fair for a genuinely historical post to be lost against the mire of fairly trivial postings.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 11:05 PM
If I post a history topic in the politics section, it gets moved to history.
sure, like if the OP made a mistake or something, OP gets weight, not making other people sweep up..
sure, like if the OP made a mistake or something, OP gets weight, not making other people sweep up..
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:10 PM
If I post a history topic in the politics section, it gets moved to history.
sure, like if the OP made a mistake or something, OP gets weight, not making other people sweep up..
And again, there is no difference. It's simply about topic category. Posts are still viewable, uncensored.
sure, like if the OP made a mistake or something, OP gets weight, not making other people sweep up..
And again, there is no difference. It's simply about topic category. Posts are still viewable, uncensored.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 11:31 PM
but we are making people move things
.. like slaves
.. like slaves
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:32 PM
but we are making people move things
.. like slaves
They damn well should. I grace them with the glory of my presence, the least they could do is bend to my whim.
.. like slaves
They damn well should. I grace them with the glory of my presence, the least they could do is bend to my whim.
Fuzzy
22nd January 2012, 11:34 PM
Instead of moving topics to a special NSFW section, would it be easier to just label NSFW topics as such? That requires merely clicking and typing 5 characters and enter as opposed to the hassle of moving things, doesn't require a fundamental reorganization of the various subfora, and is useful to people like me who use the search feature for new posts and completely disregard which subforum a topic is in.
eta: Should clarify, 5 characters is including the space immediately before "NSFW"
eta: Should clarify, 5 characters is including the space immediately before "NSFW"
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 11:36 PM
agreed
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:40 PM
Should we be allowing the workplace rules of members dictate how we are able to use our forum?
If images are an issue at work/school/church/wherever, members can switch images (and avatars) off via their UCP options.
If images are an issue at work/school/church/wherever, members can switch images (and avatars) off via their UCP options.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:42 PM
Instead of moving topics to a special NSFW section, would it be easier to just label NSFW topics as such? That requires merely clicking and typing 5 characters and enter as opposed to the hassle of moving things, doesn't require a fundamental reorganization of the various subfora, and is useful to people like me who use the search feature for new posts and completely disregard which subforum a topic is in.
eta: Should clarify, 5 characters is including the space immediately before "NSFW"
Less organised, and less reliable.
Also, unless this is substantially different to phpbb, it's not really that difficult to move a thread.
eta: Should clarify, 5 characters is including the space immediately before "NSFW"
Less organised, and less reliable.
Also, unless this is substantially different to phpbb, it's not really that difficult to move a thread.
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:44 PM
Why does it need to be organised?
NSFW images come up in all sorts of contexts ...
NSFW images come up in all sorts of contexts ...
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:45 PM
Should we be allowing the workplace rules of members dictate how we are able to use our forum?
If images are an issue at work/school/church/wherever, members can switch images (and avatars) off via their UCP options.
My solution would simply reallocate topics. Your solution would require members to actively censor materials innocuous or otherwise, simply on the off-chance they view something inappropriate.
Take a look at the number image thread - not viewable with images removed.
No matter how you view it, someone's use of the forum is being dictated by the behaviour of someone else. It simply a matter of whether you're a FREE SPEECH! forum. Or a free speech FORUM.
If images are an issue at work/school/church/wherever, members can switch images (and avatars) off via their UCP options.
My solution would simply reallocate topics. Your solution would require members to actively censor materials innocuous or otherwise, simply on the off-chance they view something inappropriate.
Take a look at the number image thread - not viewable with images removed.
No matter how you view it, someone's use of the forum is being dictated by the behaviour of someone else. It simply a matter of whether you're a FREE SPEECH! forum. Or a free speech FORUM.
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:45 PM
Keep in mind, spoilering is an option, too. Anyone can ask another poster to spoiler an image.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:46 PM
Why does it need to be organised?
NSFW images come up in all sorts of contexts ...
Which I already said was a major problem about my proposal. Cross-topic posts, re: History example
NSFW images come up in all sorts of contexts ...
Which I already said was a major problem about my proposal. Cross-topic posts, re: History example
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:47 PM
Should we be allowing the workplace rules of members dictate how we are able to use our forum?
If images are an issue at work/school/church/wherever, members can switch images (and avatars) off via their UCP options.
My solution would simply reallocate topics. Your solution would require members to actively censor materials innocuous or otherwise, simply on the off-chance they view something inappropriate.
Take a look at the number image thread - not viewable with images removed.
No matter how you view it, someone's use of the forum is being dictated by the behaviour of someone else. It simply a matter of whether you're a FREE SPEECH! forum. Or a free speech FORUM.
NSFW images might be posted in that game thread .. I wouldn't want to move the image or the thread in that case.
If images are an issue at work/school/church/wherever, members can switch images (and avatars) off via their UCP options.
My solution would simply reallocate topics. Your solution would require members to actively censor materials innocuous or otherwise, simply on the off-chance they view something inappropriate.
Take a look at the number image thread - not viewable with images removed.
No matter how you view it, someone's use of the forum is being dictated by the behaviour of someone else. It simply a matter of whether you're a FREE SPEECH! forum. Or a free speech FORUM.
NSFW images might be posted in that game thread .. I wouldn't want to move the image or the thread in that case.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:48 PM
Keep in mind, spoilering is an option, too. Anyone can ask another poster to spoiler an image.
Which doesn't help workplace filters. Images are hidden on screen, but still loaded nontheless (unless someone can chime in, this was how I understood spoiler tags to work).
So again, the emphasis on what kind of forum you are.
Which doesn't help workplace filters. Images are hidden on screen, but still loaded nontheless (unless someone can chime in, this was how I understood spoiler tags to work).
So again, the emphasis on what kind of forum you are.
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:49 PM
Why does it need to be organised?
NSFW images come up in all sorts of contexts ...
Which I already said was a major problem about my proposal. Cross-topic posts, re: History example
Yes. I think members should accept that (illegal stuff aside) anything goes on this forum and make their adjustments for work accordingly.
NSFW images come up in all sorts of contexts ...
Which I already said was a major problem about my proposal. Cross-topic posts, re: History example
Yes. I think members should accept that (illegal stuff aside) anything goes on this forum and make their adjustments for work accordingly.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:50 PM
Should we be allowing the workplace rules of members dictate how we are able to use our forum?
If images are an issue at work/school/church/wherever, members can switch images (and avatars) off via their UCP options.
My solution would simply reallocate topics. Your solution would require members to actively censor materials innocuous or otherwise, simply on the off-chance they view something inappropriate.
Take a look at the number image thread - not viewable with images removed.
No matter how you view it, someone's use of the forum is being dictated by the behaviour of someone else. It simply a matter of whether you're a FREE SPEECH! forum. Or a free speech FORUM.
NSFW images might be posted in that game thread .. I wouldn't want to move the image or the thread in that case.
*shrug*
Or you could just establish a 'Safe for work' area, and leave the rest of the forum as it is. No moving necessary.
If images are an issue at work/school/church/wherever, members can switch images (and avatars) off via their UCP options.
My solution would simply reallocate topics. Your solution would require members to actively censor materials innocuous or otherwise, simply on the off-chance they view something inappropriate.
Take a look at the number image thread - not viewable with images removed.
No matter how you view it, someone's use of the forum is being dictated by the behaviour of someone else. It simply a matter of whether you're a FREE SPEECH! forum. Or a free speech FORUM.
NSFW images might be posted in that game thread .. I wouldn't want to move the image or the thread in that case.
*shrug*
Or you could just establish a 'Safe for work' area, and leave the rest of the forum as it is. No moving necessary.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 11:50 PM
Also, unless this is substantially different to phpbb, it's not really that difficult to move a thread.
Are you volunteering for a position that does not exist?
Are you volunteering for a position that does not exist?
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:51 PM
Also, unless this is substantially different to phpbb, it's not really that difficult to move a thread.
Are you volunteering for a position that does not exist?
Nope. I enjoy being disrespectful far too much.
Are you volunteering for a position that does not exist?
Nope. I enjoy being disrespectful far too much.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 11:52 PM
NSFW images might be posted in that game thread .. I wouldn't want to move the image or the thread in that case.
That will be a move if this is in effect, games should always and always be public.
That will be a move if this is in effect, games should always and always be public.
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:53 PM
admins (forum janitors here) can move threads if asked and the interested consensus is in favour ... obviously there will be times when someone starts a topic in one subforum which would better fit into another.
Fuzzy
22nd January 2012, 11:54 PM
I will do it. I will move NSFW threads out of the SFW section.
eta: and into MORDOR
eta: and into MORDOR
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:54 PM
admins (forum janitors here) can move threads if asked and the interested consensus is in favour ... obviously there will be times when someone starts a topic in one subforum which would better fit into another.
This is in response to admins moving threads in general, not in regard to moving threads due to images posted within.
This is in response to admins moving threads in general, not in regard to moving threads due to images posted within.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 11:55 PM
A player that shits in the game play (causing janitor to sweep things; game play moved) should be removed from the game for many games.
charlou
22nd January 2012, 11:56 PM
My vote would be against the workplace restrictions of members dictating where we can post our images.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:56 PM
I will do it. I will move NSFW threads out of the SFW section.
eta: and into MORDOR
Once does not simply move it to Mordor.
eta: and into MORDOR
Once does not simply move it to Mordor.
Grumps
22nd January 2012, 11:58 PM
My vote would be against the workplace restrictions of members dictating where we can post our images.
Or you could just establish a 'Safe for work' area, and leave the rest of the forum as it is. No moving necessary.
Also, apparently the 'message was too short'. Fuck this message limit shit.
Or you could just establish a 'Safe for work' area, and leave the rest of the forum as it is. No moving necessary.
Also, apparently the 'message was too short'. Fuck this message limit shit.
Jerome
22nd January 2012, 11:58 PM
Nope. I enjoy being disrespectful far too much.
That is not a qualification for what we have.
Our membership is completely on our terms.
That is not a qualification for what we have.
Our membership is completely on our terms.
Grumps
23rd January 2012, 12:01 AM
Nope. I enjoy being disrespectful far too much.
That is not a qualification for what we have.
Our membership is completely on our terms.
Doesn't matter. No matter how idealised you would like this place to be, you're all just people in the end.
There will, eventually, be something that plenty of people consider 'too far'. The only question is how will you manage it at that point?
That is not a qualification for what we have.
Our membership is completely on our terms.
Doesn't matter. No matter how idealised you would like this place to be, you're all just people in the end.
There will, eventually, be something that plenty of people consider 'too far'. The only question is how will you manage it at that point?
charlou
23rd January 2012, 12:03 AM
We could set up a straw poll with a set of options, asking members what their circumstances (work, school, etc) and preferences are with regard to NSFW images and post it somewhere prominent as a reference point for members to keep in mind. Not as a rule, but a guide that members can consider or reject.
Such a poll should have revoting and multiple voting allowed, as the list of options would include several that might fit.
Such a poll should have revoting and multiple voting allowed, as the list of options would include several that might fit.
Fuzzy
23rd January 2012, 12:05 AM
I browse at school a lot, but it's a funiversity; if I look at porn all day I can just say "IT WAS FOR ACADEMIC INTEREST" so a few vaginas on MR won't bother me personally.
Fuzzy
23rd January 2012, 12:06 AM
For the record, I have never browsed porn all day at school
eta: or even part of the day
eta: or even part of the day
charlou
23rd January 2012, 12:06 AM
:D
oblivion
23rd January 2012, 12:10 AM
Keep in mind, spoilering is an option, too. Anyone can ask another poster to spoiler an image.
Which doesn't help workplace filters. Images are hidden on screen, but still loaded nontheless (unless someone can chime in, this was how I understood spoiler tags to work).
So again, the emphasis on what kind of forum you are.
this true. which is why I will have images turned off while at work. I will still be able to see links, and click them if they look worksafe.
Which doesn't help workplace filters. Images are hidden on screen, but still loaded nontheless (unless someone can chime in, this was how I understood spoiler tags to work).
So again, the emphasis on what kind of forum you are.
this true. which is why I will have images turned off while at work. I will still be able to see links, and click them if they look worksafe.
Jerome
23rd January 2012, 12:30 AM
There will, eventually, be something that plenty of people consider 'too far'.
there is always something someone considers too far
I propose we try it, .. this idea could shit itself in less than a year, so what .. Let us see what happens.
there is always something someone considers too far
I propose we try it, .. this idea could shit itself in less than a year, so what .. Let us see what happens.
Grumps
23rd January 2012, 12:31 AM
There will, eventually, be something that plenty of people consider 'too far'.
there is always something someone considers too far
I propose we try it, .. this idea could shit itself in less than a year, so what .. Let us see what happens.
I am so turned on right now.
there is always something someone considers too far
I propose we try it, .. this idea could shit itself in less than a year, so what .. Let us see what happens.
I am so turned on right now.
Jerome
23rd January 2012, 12:32 AM
We could set up a straw poll with a set of options, asking members what their circumstances (work, school, etc) and preferences are with regard to NSFW images and post it somewhere prominent as a reference point for members to keep in mind. Not as a rule, but a guide that members can consider or reject.
Such a poll should have revoting and multiple voting allowed, as the list of options would include several that might fit.
omg no
Such a poll should have revoting and multiple voting allowed, as the list of options would include several that might fit.
omg no
Jerome
23rd January 2012, 12:35 AM
fuck votes, let's do this organic..
Fuzzy
23rd January 2012, 12:39 AM
agreed that it should be organic. Pesticide has no place is demoncracy
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét