Excuse me mods

roadbikeguy13 · 08-15-2002, 11:45 AM

I'm not sure who locked my thread so I dont know who to e-mail directly.

Why was my thread locked? The pictures were graphic so I linked them. Technically it wasn't even a link because the person had to copy/paste it into a seperate browser.

I did not put a EXTREMELY GRAPHIC warning, which I forgot, but that could have been added to my post instead of deleting it entirely.

Thanks

WhoGirl · 08-15-2002, 11:54 AM

Umm, I don't think a warning matters. No extremely sexually explicit stuff is allowed to be posted here, no matter what the disclaimer is.

By the way, it's probably best to either email a mod with your concern on this, or post a thread in the feedback forum.

roadbikeguy13 · 08-15-2002, 11:57 AM

I'm probably misreading this rule:

- Do not post any extremely sexually graphic or extremely mature image. The litmus test is : 'Is this an image which could appear in Playboy'? If the answer is NO then please only post a link. Also please warn if a link leads to extreme sex or other extremely graphic image.

Whogirl...why would they include that part about warning people if its extreme sex, if you say that pics like that aren't allowed?

I knew that the pics would not pass the Playboy "litmus test" so I posted a link which required the person to copy/paste it. So minus the warning it should have been ok...if I understood it correctly.

fishdude · 08-15-2002, 12:22 PM

I am a bit confused as well.

I saw the link before it was removed.....was it graphic, yes -- was it more graphic than the links from T-Ball, no.

Even Blake has graciously posted some links to stuff that would never make it into Playboy.

Former User · 08-15-2002, 12:43 PM

I locked it, that's why the "-X" was at the end of my explanation.

Those pictures were extremely explicit and you're right, you didn't have a warning next to the link. But more than that, my understanding is that we do not allow direct links to pictures showing actual sex acts.

The mods are discussing this subject and will let you know the exact policy so there won't be any future misintrepretations. I haven't seen the other pictures you mentioned so I guess I'll have to do some research.

Oh, and I'd just as soon keep this thread in here rather than discussing this in Feedback. It's fairly mature.

roadbikeguy13 · 08-15-2002, 12:52 PM

But X..that wasn't a direct link. A person had to copy the address I posted, paste it into their browser and replace the * with a letter!

That way no one could accidently click it and see the pics at work or something.

Thanks for your attention so far

Former User · 08-15-2002, 12:58 PM

Bad argument. Substituting one letter because our censor censored out the word in the URL until you edited out the "c" sure showed intent, and was close enough to a direct link because you only had to copy, paste, and fix one letter.

What I'm talking about is if you had a link to a page that did not have such explicit pictures but if a person navigated around they might find some could be ok. The the exact URL with a letter substituted or something is just a joke and would be considered a direct link.

roadbikeguy13 · 08-15-2002, 01:02 PM

Ok...I getcha. I thought direct link, literally meant a DIRECT link. My apologies.

Not to rat out others, but how can Blake and others post similar pics? Or is that a thing of the past now?

Boot · 08-15-2002, 06:12 PM

Wait a minute, I thought we were allowed to post links to explicit material as long as we didn't post the image in the thread and we made clear that the links contained graphic material. I can understand extremely graphic stuff like fisting or something not being allowed, but we can't even link to pictures with sex in them? I remember that being the case in Other, but since Mature was created, I thought we were allowed to link to sexual stuff.

Former User · 08-15-2002, 07:21 PM

I don't remember having any photos of sex acts ever pop up before. And I might have missed the previous referenced ones. I'm going to have to do some grueling research.

Like I said, we're working on it so everybody will be clear on this. Especially the mods.

joltaddict · 08-15-2002, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by X
we're working on it so everybody will be clear on this. Especially the mods.

Dibs on first in line to kick namrufmot in the yingyang.

Boot · 08-15-2002, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by X
I don't remember having any photos of sex acts ever pop up before. And I might have missed the previous referenced ones. I'm going to have to do some grueling research.

Like I said, we're working on it so everybody will be clear on this. Especially the mods.

I know you're checking on this, but just for the sake of argument, the quote you provide from the rules thread states,

Quote:

- Do not post any extremely sexually graphic or extremely mature image. The litmus test is : 'Is this an image which could appear in Playboy'? If the answer is NO then please only post a link. Also please warn if a link leads to extreme sex or other extremely graphic image.

This says to me that sexually explicit (within reason of course) images are okay as long as they're linked and contain a warning. If they weren't allowed as links, then it would simply say nothing worse than Playboy, period.

Aghama · 08-15-2002, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by X

I'm going to have to do some grueling research.

Tough job.

Big Quasimodo · 08-15-2002, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Boot

This says to me that sexually explicit (within reason of course) images are okay as long as they're linked and contain a warning. If they weren't allowed as links, then it would simply say nothing worse than Playboy, period.

Here, here. In fact, I would like to register my displeasure at the general lack of such linked and warned posts in the MATURE forum. We are definitely too heavy on the "Ask Xaviera (or grunter)" side and are sorely lacking on the "Show Quasimodo the money" side.

Former User · 08-15-2002, 08:27 PM

There's Playboy, there's Penthouse, there's, well, nevermind. But there is quite a spread between Playboy and explicit sexual acts.

(Is "Ask Xaviera" still around? She must be about 70 by now!

)

Big Quasimodo · 08-15-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by X
There's Playboy, there's Penthouse, there's, well, nevermind. But there is quite a spread between Playboy and explicit sexual acts.

(Is "Ask Xaviera" still around? She must be about 70 by now! )

I'm always dating myself....

:jawdrop: WAITAMINUTE!!!!

dvdsteve2000 · 08-19-2002, 05:51 PM

So wait a minute...you can't post sexual acts, but the pics of chicks ramming dildos are OK?? Now I'M confused!!

Buford T Pusser · 08-19-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aghama
Tough job.

Did you mean Hard job?

Buford T Pusser · 08-19-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Boot

I know you're checking on this, but just for the sake of argument, the quote you provide from the rules thread states,

This says to me that sexually explicit (within reason of course) images are okay as long as they're linked and contain a warning. If they weren't allowed as links, then it would simply say nothing worse than Playboy, period.

Good point.

bmello · 08-19-2002, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by X
But there is quite a spread between Playboy and explicit sexual acts.

Now the Playboy channel gets a little explicit on Sat. night and occassionally on Naughty Amatuer Videos.

Buford T Pusser · 08-19-2002, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by X
There's Playboy, there's Penthouse, there's, well, nevermind. But there is quite a spread between Playboy and explicit sexual acts.

Quite a spread.

08-15-2002, 11:45 AM	#1
roadbikeguy13 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 5,828	Excuse me mods I'm not sure who locked my thread so I dont know who to e-mail directly. Why was my thread locked? The pictures were graphic so I linked them. Technically it wasn't even a link because the person had to copy/paste it into a seperate browser. I did not put a EXTREMELY GRAPHIC warning, which I forgot, but that could have been added to my post instead of deleting it entirely. Thanks

08-15-2002, 12:22 PM	#4
fishdude Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Near Philly--Go Flyers!! Posts: 1,609	I am a bit confused as well. I saw the link before it was removed.....was it graphic, yes -- was it more graphic than the links from T-Ball, no. Even Blake has graciously posted some links to stuff that would never make it into Playboy. __________________ "Nothing says "Surprise!!!" like being midstroke and having her dog stick his cold wet nose in your asscrack." - weargle My Dvd's

08-19-2002, 05:51 PM	#17
dvdsteve2000 DVD Talk Ultimate Edition Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Still standing at the back of the line. Posts: 4,463	So wait a minute...you can't post sexual acts, but the pics of chicks ramming dildos are OK?? Now I'M confused!! __________________ XBOX 360 GAMERTAG: K1LLLTACULAR or SOFA KIN WHAT I hate HD-DVD combo discs...When DVD first hit, they didn't strap a VHS tape to it "just in case" you wanted the old format.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-15-2002, 11:54 AM	#2
WhoGirl DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The Last House on the Left Posts: 12,660	Umm, I don't think a warning matters. No extremely sexually explicit stuff is allowed to be posted here, no matter what the disclaimer is. By the way, it's probably best to either email a mod with your concern on this, or post a thread in the feedback forum.

08-15-2002, 11:57 AM	#3
roadbikeguy13 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 5,828	I'm probably misreading this rule: - Do not post any extremely sexually graphic or extremely mature image. The litmus test is : 'Is this an image which could appear in Playboy'? If the answer is NO then please only post a link. Also please warn if a link leads to extreme sex or other extremely graphic image. Whogirl...why would they include that part about warning people if its extreme sex, if you say that pics like that aren't allowed? I knew that the pics would not pass the Playboy "litmus test" so I posted a link which required the person to copy/paste it. So minus the warning it should have been ok...if I understood it correctly.

08-15-2002, 12:43 PM	#5
Former User Legacy Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 238	I locked it, that's why the "-X" was at the end of my explanation. Those pictures were extremely explicit and you're right, you didn't have a warning next to the link. But more than that, my understanding is that we do not allow direct links to pictures showing actual sex acts. The mods are discussing this subject and will let you know the exact policy so there won't be any future misintrepretations. I haven't seen the other pictures you mentioned so I guess I'll have to do some research. Oh, and I'd just as soon keep this thread in here rather than discussing this in Feedback. It's fairly mature.

08-15-2002, 12:52 PM	#6
roadbikeguy13 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 5,828	But X..that wasn't a direct link. A person had to copy the address I posted, paste it into their browser and replace the * with a letter! That way no one could accidently click it and see the pics at work or something. Thanks for your attention so far

08-15-2002, 12:58 PM	#7
Former User Legacy Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 238	Bad argument. Substituting one letter because our censor censored out the word in the URL until you edited out the "c" sure showed intent, and was close enough to a direct link because you only had to copy, paste, and fix one letter. What I'm talking about is if you had a link to a page that did not have such explicit pictures but if a person navigated around they might find some could be ok. The the exact URL with a letter substituted or something is just a joke and would be considered a direct link.

08-15-2002, 01:02 PM	#8
roadbikeguy13 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 5,828	Ok...I getcha. I thought direct link, literally meant a DIRECT link. My apologies. Not to rat out others, but how can Blake and others post similar pics? Or is that a thing of the past now?

08-15-2002, 06:12 PM	#9
Boot DVD Talk Hall of Fame Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The backwoods of Arkansas Posts: 8,081	Wait a minute, I thought we were allowed to post links to explicit material as long as we didn't post the image in the thread and we made clear that the links contained graphic material. I can understand extremely graphic stuff like fisting or something not being allowed, but we can't even link to pictures with sex in them? I remember that being the case in Other, but since Mature was created, I thought we were allowed to link to sexual stuff.

08-15-2002, 07:21 PM	#10
Former User Legacy Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 238	I don't remember having any photos of sex acts ever pop up before. And I might have missed the previous referenced ones. I'm going to have to do some grueling research. Like I said, we're working on it so everybody will be clear on this. Especially the mods.

08-15-2002, 08:27 PM	#15
Former User Legacy Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 238	There's Playboy, there's Penthouse, there's, well, nevermind. But there is quite a spread between Playboy and explicit sexual acts. (Is "Ask Xaviera" still around? She must be about 70 by now! )

New Reviews

Excuse me mods

Porn Star Blogs and Review Talk