|
Post by Clockwork on May 20, 2012 0:51:27 GMT
Because the intent shouldn't be what is bannable, it should be the fact that you're indirectly posting the url. The ease of getting to that website is the same as posting the url of a porn site on chat and breaking it up with spaces. Would that be bannable if it weren't for trolling?
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on May 20, 2012 1:07:37 GMT
Unless you mean that "what is bannable shouldn't be based off the intent," I fear you have mistaken what I said for something else. The ease of getting to the website by manually typing in the URL seen in the image probably is equivalent to the ease of getting to the website by fixing the typos in the URL of the site and posting that address into the address bar, but then there's a matter of context. When does one post, malformed or otherwise, the link to the site directly without intending either to lead others to the site, to troll, or to stretch the rules (which in itself would be a form of trolling the staff)? On the other hand, I can conceive of a manner in which one might post a screenshot of a pornographic hyperlink that has as the screenshot's intention neither to lead others to the site, to troll, nor to stretch the rules - namely, a private conversation that a forum member might have with some anonymous user on private chat who wants to trick the forum user into visiting a site but fails miserably to do so, prompting the forum member to decide that the failure is so hilarious that it might be worth screenshooting and posting to Chat's Funniest Moments. In this hypothetical but conceivable case, none of the intents of the image or its poster would be to lead others to the site, to troll, or to stretch the rules; in this hypothetical but conceivable case, the only intent would be to share an "epic fail" with others.
Of course, if you can conceive of a legitimate, hypothetical but conceivable case in which one would directly type/paste the URL (malformed or otherwise) to the chat or forum and not have as any of his intents to lead others to the site, to troll, or to stretch the rules, then I must concede that you have a point and do something about the dillemna - otherwise, I see no problem...
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on May 20, 2012 14:18:32 GMT
He can't conceive... He is only a child...
|
|