|
Post by Clockwork on May 16, 2012 1:37:38 GMT
I was banned when nm wasn't for the same offense.
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on May 16, 2012 1:42:32 GMT
I think the rule should be more elaborate. Pornography or anything leading to pornography needs to be banned on site.
Also, this URL leading to a URL shit also needs to be handled. It's basically the same purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 16, 2012 1:44:43 GMT
The purpose is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on May 16, 2012 1:48:41 GMT
You posted a link directly in chat of breasts. Anyone looking at the chat client sees it straightaway. Nmagane posted a brief conversation from an omegle log in which a scammer had posted an imgur link to porn.
By all means that's worth a warning, but hardly a ban. For all we know it wasn't even intentional.
The reason porn is banned here is (aside from ToS) to keep it SFW for all members. Nmagane did not post anything that was not directly SFW. Granted, the indirect link may warrant some punishment, but hardly the same punishment as outright posting a nude image in chat.
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on May 16, 2012 1:49:20 GMT
You posted a link directly in chat of breasts. Anyone looking at the chat client sees it straightaway. Nmagane posted a brief conversation from an omegle log in which a scammer had posted an imgur link to porn. By all means that's worth a warning, but hardly a ban. For all we know it wasn't even intentional. So you're saying he didn't read the Omegle chat, but thought it was funny. What.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 16, 2012 1:50:14 GMT
He obviously read it first.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 16, 2012 2:16:20 GMT
Bicker about his point all you want, the point remains that you did the worse thing and are ergo receiving a punishment proportionally greater...
|
|
|
Post by noodlesoup on May 16, 2012 7:48:54 GMT
Please let him go. He is only a child.
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on May 16, 2012 11:41:22 GMT
help me! Seriously though, I posted a link to an Omegle conversation because it was funny, not because I wanted to show you a pair of tits. If what I did is bannable, might as well ban posting links to facepunch, there's some porn thread there.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on May 16, 2012 16:38:15 GMT
You could follow a link trail just about anywhere and eventually find porn. It's not that hard, once you find a link that leads to a major site like reddit or Wikipedia you can go anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 16, 2012 17:30:49 GMT
So I would be unbanned if I posted an image of a url to the same image that he posted. It's the same posting a URL that isn't hyperlinked and has to be typed in the url field. And the image contains porn.
In which case, it would be the same as if someone posted url in porn and put a space in the domain name. The purpose is irrelevant, it's the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 16, 2012 17:40:01 GMT
Unbanned? No action on part of the rule violator would get one unbanned with the exception of successfully petitioning a repeal. If you were to post what Nmagane posted, that would not unban you because you are still banned for posting pornography. Not be banned? That's better worded.
You would simply not be banned for posting an image of a conversation that had a hyperlink (which did not show the image) of what would be pornography. You can't click on the link, and you can certainly see beforehand that it was pornography and successfully exercise the right to look at it or not to look at it and know you couldn't possibly accidentally find yourself there as a result of clicking on the link, since the pictured link is itself only a picture of a link and not the link itself.
You would be banned if you were to post that link to pornography into the forum or chat directly. At least this way one could still exercise the right to follow it or not to follow it, but there's the chance that it could actually be clicked and it would actually lead to pornography.
You would be banned for posting pornography itself directly. No one with a visual client would be capable of exercising the right not to look at it.
If our rule was the only one under discussion, hypothetically speaking, then posting a malformed URL to a pornographic site (if the malformed URL itself wasn't in violation of rules) would hypothetically be alright. That said, you would be instead banned for intentionally pushing the limits of the rules. Also, our rule about pornography is not the only one under discussion - there's also the Terms of Service banning pornography. To ensure compliance, we simply cannot allow, for instance, even a malformed URL to a pornographic site, even if in its malformed state the URL didn't link anywhere in violation of rules.
Now that the red herring is out of the way, let me make it clear that, regardless of what anyone else did or did not do, you did post pornography and are banned for it. I think it is safe to say that your appeal is denied...
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 16, 2012 17:42:56 GMT
I didn't know where to post this. I'm not really requesting or appealing a ban, it's more of "please fix this rule". Because you shouldn't be able to post porn by posting a url through an image, which is what nmagane did.
You can type the link, so does this mean you can post a real link? It's not like anyone is seeing the image. You can put a space between the domain so you can't just click it. At that point, you have to drag, copy, and paste in your url bar, which is as difficult as typing it from the image.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 16, 2012 17:46:45 GMT
Well, that would either be in its own thread for "About the Forum" or it would go under "Forum Rules" as a post making a suggestion to fix the rule, but please read my modified post if you didn't already...
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 16, 2012 17:53:30 GMT
Unbanned? No action on part of the rule violator would get one unbanned with the exception of successfully petitioning a repeal. If you were to post what Nmagane posted, that would not unban you because you are still banned for posting pornography. Not be banned? That's better worded. You would simply not be banned for posting an image of a conversation that had a hyperlink (which did not show the image) of what would be pornography. You can't click on the link, and you can certainly see beforehand that it was pornography and successfully exercise the right to look at it or not to look at it and know you couldn't possibly accidentally find yourself there as a result of clicking on the link, since the pictured link is itself only a picture of a link and not the link itself. You would be banned if you were to post that link to pornography into the forum or chat directly. At least this way one could still exercise the right to follow it or not to follow it, but there's the chance that it could actually be clicked and it would actually lead to pornography. You would be banned for posting pornography itself directly. No one with a visual client would be capable of exercising the right not to look at it. If our rule was the only one under discussion, hypothetically speaking, then posting a malformed URL to a pornographic site (if the malformed URL itself wasn't in violation of rules) would hypothetically be alright. That said, you would be instead banned for intentionally pushing the limits of the rules. Also, our rule about pornography is not the only one under discussion - there's also the Terms of Service banning pornography. To ensure compliance, we simply cannot allow, for instance, even a malformed URL to a pornographic site, even if in its malformed state the URL didn't link anywhere in violation of rules. Now that the red herring is out of the way, let me make it clear that, regardless of what anyone else did or did not do, you did post pornography and are banned for it. I think it is safe to say that your appeal is denied... If our rule was the only one under discussion, hypothetically speaking, then posting a malformed URL to a pornographic site (if the malformed URL itself wasn't in violation of rules) would hypothetically be alright. That said, you would be instead banned for intentionally pushing the limits of the rules. Also, our rule about pornography is not the only one under discussion - there's also the Terms of Service banning pornography. To ensure compliance, we simply cannot allow, for instance, even a malformed URL to a pornographic site, even if in its malformed state the URL didn't link anywhere in violation of rules. ...posting a malformed URL to a pornographic site would hypothetically be alright.... So you're saying posting a malformed URL to nudity for educational purposes would be completely allowable. Or posting it for humour? What does the purpose have anything to do with it? It's still against the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 16, 2012 18:01:18 GMT
You forgot to quote the part where I said that, nevertheless, you would be banned for intentionally pushing the limits of the rules.
(As a tip, the "zoom in a quote" effect is best used for dramatic effect or to make one look melodramatic. See Hachouma's thread about extra inventory space in Stick Ranger for the effect applied properly. Most other uses of the effect only detract from the rest of the thread...)
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 16, 2012 18:03:50 GMT
That implies that you wouldn't be banned for posting the same thing, but for another reason, such as humor.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 16, 2012 18:20:20 GMT
In a sense, yes - strictly but hypothetically speaking, you would be banned for intentionally pushing the limit of the rules and, by extension, by trolling the staff. That would get you at least as long a ban as the violation itself, plus some extra for trolling forum staff, so if you're arguing solely for a reduced ban, your point is moot.
Again, though, we also have to worry about the Terms of Service, and I don't know its strictness, so I assume a reasonably strict enforcement is necessary...
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on May 16, 2012 18:24:11 GMT
The TOS only apply on the forum, for the record.
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on May 16, 2012 18:28:28 GMT
the chat is embedded to the forum, you know.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on May 16, 2012 18:41:42 GMT
The chat is hosted on a different site. It happens to have a client embedded in the forum, but it's not actually part of the forum, nor is it controllable by Proboards rules.
It is however controllable by our rules and Chatango's rules, and those forbid nudity.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 16, 2012 18:43:18 GMT
Disregarding my ban, since that isn't really the point of the thread and we've derailed...
GV, the image wouldn't be for trolling staff, it'd be for ANOTHER reason. And from your's and tempy's logic, that means that person won't be banned.
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on May 16, 2012 20:37:07 GMT
I like how all of you managed to make this thread completely overcomplicated.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on May 16, 2012 23:52:31 GMT
True. Should I move it to debate or something? This thread has already been moved twice, a third would hardly matter.
I guess it isn't really much debate though. As far as the ban goes, the question is only "how long". As far as the rule goes, there's wiggle-room, but Veers and Fox and I can just clarify that little blip later.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 19, 2012 22:02:25 GMT
I won.
You were banned for an undefined amount of time, and yet you make two-word posts? Have 10% for spam.
I still think I won. Your points are all illogical or silly. Things like you can post images of porn links, but only if it's for a purpose other than just doing it to "stretch the rules".
Of course, that two word post covered that equally as well as those few sentences. So I think you just want to give me a warning because you're sore about losing the debate. That, or you really want to give me a warning for person reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 20, 2012 0:22:13 GMT
Win? Win what? It has been established that pornography will result in a ban, that direct links to pornography will be banned, and that typos of direct links to pornography will be banned. It has also been established that a screenshot of a chat where one participant happened to have a non-image link to pornography (which can't be followed since it's in a screenshot and not itself hyperlinked) won't be banned on account of pornography. It has also been established that posting pornography, claiming it has some purpose, but not following up on that purpose and having hidden intent of simply getting away with posting "a nude pic" or something to that effect will result in a ban. If anything, you started a discussion that resulted in a slight clarification of what will and what will not result in a ban as it relates to pornography, and for that you are a winner. Other than that, I don't see what there was to win.
Protip: saying that "you win" in a debate either makes you look like an idiot or like a jerk. If you actually have the less convincing argument, you make yourself out to be an idiot. If you indeed have the more convincing argument, you make yourself out to be a jerk. Either way, you lose the Internet reputation game.
Protip: actually following my protips will result in a better Internet experience for all involved.
Protip: taking Symbolic Logic is a good idea and will result in improved arguments guaranteed.
Protip: I'm serious.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 20, 2012 0:24:49 GMT
Win? Win what? It has been established that pornography will result in a ban, that direct links to pornography will be banned, and that typos of direct links to pornography will be banned. It has also been established that a screenshot of a chat where one participant happened to have a non-image link to pornography (which can't be followed since it's in a screenshot and not itself hyperlinked) won't be banned on account of pornography. It has also been established that posting pornography, claiming it has some purpose, but not following up on that purpose and having hidden intent of simply getting away with posting "a nude pic" or something to that effect will result in a ban. If anything, you started a discussion that resulted in a slight clarification of what will and what will not result in a ban as it relates to pornography, and for that you are a winner. Other than that, I don't see what there was to win... Then why is nmagane not banned? He posted a link to an image with a pornography link in it. And he isn't banned. You then said that posting it for the reason of stretching rules or trolling staff will get you banned, posting porn indirectly for humor will not however.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 20, 2012 0:31:59 GMT
Win? Win what? It has been established that pornography will result in a ban, that direct links to pornography will be banned, and that typos of direct links to pornography will be banned. It has also been established that a screenshot of a chat where one participant happened to have a non-image link to pornography (which can't be followed since it's in a screenshot and not itself hyperlinked) won't be banned on account of pornography. It has also been established that posting pornography, claiming it has some purpose, but not following up on that purpose and having hidden intent of simply getting away with posting "a nude pic" or something to that effect will result in a ban. If anything, you started a discussion that resulted in a slight clarification of what will and what will not result in a ban as it relates to pornography, and for that you are a winner. Other than that, I don't see what there was to win... Then why is nmagane not banned? He posted a link to an image with a pornography link in it. And he isn't banned. You then said that posting it for the reason of stretching rules or trolling staff will get you banned, posting porn indirectly for humor will not however. Additionally, I have not seen the image, so maybe he should be banned for trying to stretch the rules...
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on May 20, 2012 0:34:06 GMT
Then why is nmagane not banned? He posted a link to an image with a pornography link in it. And he isn't banned. You then said that posting it for the reason of stretching rules or trolling staff will get you banned, posting porn indirectly for humor will not however. Additionally, I have not seen the image, so maybe he should be banned for trying to stretch the rules... Then you're saying that one can post an image of a URL, very short, to a pornography image. And that the intent of this image is what determines the ban. Posting it for stretching the rules is not the same as say, posting it for humour, like NM did. I'm sorry, that's just illogical.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 20, 2012 0:48:52 GMT
I'm saying that posting the image, no matter what, is punishable. I'm saying that posting the URL directly is punishable. I'm also saying that posting an image that coincidentally happens to contain the URL may or may not be punishable, depending on intent.
Could you please point out the problem? I am blind to the mistake in my reasoning and would be very glad if you could point it out...
|
|
|