LogFAQs > #947559948

XIII_rocks posted...

I generally don't post in topics like this. I know for a fact I've actively avoided several over the last 18 months. You are taking an isolated incident in which you disagree and making an overarching character judgement. If somebody did this to you, you would cry foul about it for years.

ok, that was kind of a flippant remark that i shouldn't have made. sorry.

The site has determined that due to the high amount of adult content posted on that site it is an inappropriate thing to put on the boards. It is thus characterized here as essentially a "porn site", whether you agree that it should be or not. So to be clear, the moderation itself is a fair application of our current rules (apart from the fact the first one should have been offensive rather than censor bypass), in that it has been characterized as something that should be deleted. That is what I am defending specifically, and it's also why the examples Corrik posted have not been deleted.

You can however argue that the rule itself is dumb and that particular site should be allowed. That's not a hill I'm particularly prepared to die on either way; if it was allowed, I'd be fine with that. That site is at least in a grey area as opposed to certain others, so I'm not against it or anything. And there is certainly scope for a warning before you post it so stuff like this doesn't happen. But as the rules currently stand it is a fair moderation, and notably different from the other examples Corrik posted. That has been basically my sole point in this topic. You're arguing something different, that the rule itself should change or that this site should be made an exception, which is a discussion I'm fairly ambivalent towards.

i still don't think it's a fair moderation, though. at no point does the ToU mention that mentioning that particular site is not allowed. and other sites that host porn ARE allowed to be mentioned here (several people have already named obvious examples: twitter, youtube, reddit). how are we supposed to know which sites that host porn are allowed to be mentioned? should we just try mentioning them and see whether or not we get modded?

like, i'd probably care less if corrik had gotten an NKL. that's a reasonable way of letting him know "you can't mention the site here, don't do it again." to give him a warning because he broke an unwritten rule he had no way of knowing existed is dumb. it's kinda like how back in the day, b8'ers got harshly modded for posting on PotD, even though it said nowhere in the rules that doing so wasn't allowed. i don't think breaking unwritten rules should result in harsh penalties.

---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta