|
09-13-2003, 01:23 AM
|
#48 (permalink) |
|
Insane
|
i just read this thread, and yeah, people were asking questions after it had been clarified, but everyone was doing it in a respectful and often light-hearted way, there's no need to treat it harshly, respect to what others enjoy has always been a staple of the TFP, no? and it's not like those people were actually posting kiddie pics...
|
|
|
09-20-2003, 05:53 AM
|
#49 (permalink) | ||
|
Loser
Location: who the fuck cares?
|
Quote:
Quote:
People just don't get it. NO means NO. |
||
|
|
|
10-09-2003, 07:02 PM
|
#52 (permalink) |
|
Upright
|
Wow, I go to work everyday to listen to people ask stupid questions to see if they can defy any policy that they don't feel comfortable with. There is a really disturbing undercurrent to this entire discussion and it relates to the idea of certain members being threatened by the idea of not being able to post photos of people under the age of 18. I think that as a tool tfp can be worthwhile and continue to be a venue for freedom of expression and thought while living with this rule, understanding this rule and loving this rule.
|
|
|
|
10-15-2003, 08:06 AM
|
#54 (permalink) |
|
Keep on rolling. It only hurts for a little while.
Location: wherever I am
|
Works for me. Some of that stuff can border on if not be outright illegal. Better to keep the TFP adult oriented than shutdown by the authorities.
__________________
So, what's your point? It's not an attitude, it's a way of life. |
|
|
|
12-09-2003, 04:14 PM
|
#60 (permalink) |
|
Still fighting it.
|
I just have to say, is there any particular need to lay it out for us as if we were children? Why can't we question the rules? This is a discussion forum, right?
Personally, this rule doesn't affect me either way, since I can't think of any possible reason I would ever post a picture of a kid, but I don't see any reason to address people as if they were five. |
|
|
|
12-18-2003, 09:41 PM
|
#61 (permalink) |
|
!?!No hay pantalones!?!
Location: Indian-no-place
|
As far as I know, it is illegal to post the pictures of anyone under the age of 18, without that person's parent's consent. ...thus, to remove any liability at all for the staff here, it is better to keep the pictures there.
Such is the same with copyrights, keeping a paper trail of permissions and such can be expensive and consuming. Obviously there was a problem at some point in wich someone got pissed b/c they had a picture that they didn't know existed/didn't want published. ...a majority of rules/regulations/policies are based upon problems/situations that needed response. Though, to avoid any confusion on the matter, and to help discontinue rumors and such, it would be beneficial for the mods to give an explination that may help us understand why such a policy was put in place. This may help us gain a greater understanding of how the world works using real-life situations. -SF |
|
|
|
02-03-2004, 06:09 AM
|
#63 (permalink) |
|
Upright
Location: Iowa
|
As the debate goes on, many people are still outraged that pictures of those under 18 are being posted, and the same time, many new people are being brought into the thread becuase of the heading of the thread. Obvious solutions.... no one knows, but as we stand here, we can hear chants from the crowd saying, "Leave out the kids, just give us Dax" How long will this continue? Check back to find out. Your friendly neighborhood reporter, signing off......
|
|
|
|
03-08-2004, 01:50 AM
|
#65 (permalink) |
|
Insane
Location: Auckland
|
im cool with the rule, i will follow it to the letter, in fact, i almost believe that a rule like it needs to be there, i just want to hear it from the mods on why the rule is like it is.
I spose im opsesive compulsive and i like the expanation of everything i see.
__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants |
|
|
| Tags |
| jadziadax, reveals |
|
|
