fchan

I heard that Second Life screencaps are not allowed and that it was "all over /dis/ and the FAQ, but have not found word one there.  Is it true?

Thank you.  Here is a new question on that thread: when SL  begins to enforce their age verification (to preotect themselves from the same lawsuits), will this rule change?

Except that FChan has no way to verify their own members' age.  In fact, they have less than SL has currently.

So that sounds like a lie.

>>6 "So.. no SL sex and no text sex on Fchan. Ever, at all. It is equal and very fair."

Besides, if you want to have text sex, that's what the Local channel in Guild Wars is for! >.<  (morons...)

>>8

lol, actually... there is a rule there too ^^


I quote from the Upload Policy:

"Second Life Screenshots
Second Life screenshots are only permitted when showcasing an avatar created by or for the user, and will be limited to no more than three (3) submissions per User, per avatar. Purchased Avatars not created by or for the User or modifications of purchased avatars are not permitted. Excess submissions will be removed by Administration.

Users wishing to display multiple angles of the same Avatar are encouraged to create a collage (a single image consisting of multiple screenshots)."


So post at your own risk!

It's just as illegal to expose a minor to pornography.

Sorry, still leaking water there.  Not trying to be inflammatory or anything, but it simply isn't sound logic.

>>12
Ten bucks says that SL's verification is nothing more than a credit card number.

>>13

Actually, no. Last I checked, they require NOTHING, but a claim of a birthdate. It used to be a credit card, and then cell phone number, now nothing.

They are SUPPOSED to be doing something to change that. But we'll see what it is and if it even works.

>>12

Indubitably!

>>16
If i may be so bold to ask:
What truth?
What stance are we taking?
What do you even want?

I just feel that your justifications for banning SL porn, yet not banning content from other games, or artwork drawn by underage artists, or even implementing a federally accepted age-verification program (courts have already decided a 'clickthrough' is not sufficient because nothing prevents children from clicking right through it reguardless) is completely hypocritical.

Additionally, your extremely hostile attitude and refusal to ellaborate any further than the vagueness in the FAQ only hints intolerance towards the subject.


(This applies to you)  Law is not synonymous with morality.  The ends may justify the means, but the means does not justify the ends.  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.  And as an authority figure, though you may disallow such and claim it is inappropriate, you are required to defend your actions because.  Making a law does not make the law moral.  Doing so own your own private board does not make it moral.
It only makes it so you have power over others.

And I am questioning the morality of this site, if it chastises and bans SL based on being 'immoral'.

We've already clearly established that there is no more risk of FChan being sued for hosting pictures of SL than it is for hosting pornographic pictures, period.  SL has the exact same type of disclaimer as FChan, except it is much more ellaborate and written properly.  FChan has no wall, no protection, and has not complied with the standards which aren't high to begin with.

You've banned many others for the same argument, others much smarter than I, much more familiar with law, and able to quote specific articles of law reguarding such.

But i've said my peice.  Law is not morality, and your law is not moral, and your site is acting in hypocrasy.


I'm done here.  Do as you will.

the below is actual lawyer advice, even though over a year old by now.

> yet not banning content from other games
other games are not regarded the same as SL, that is, as equivalent to a phone call.
> artwork drawn by underage artists
same thing, as per law kids can draw anything they want and their stuff can be posted anywhere, as it doesn't even come close to actual exchange like in a phone call.
> (courts have already decided a 'clickthrough' is not sufficient because nothing prevents children from clicking right through it reguardless)
link or reference? when we implemented the disclaimer we were told it would be sufficient.

also, the whole crap about morality... you're way off target. i do not particularly care about kids whose parents do not protect them sufficiently. and i do not care about less likely or more likely to be sued. we view lawsuits as a black/white matter. white, we get none, everything is fine, we make sure it stays that way. black, we get one, a single one, and it is goodbye from us. we will not even risk being sued over a porn website. it would be a waste of our time and money. if you have something against these rules, provide us full legal coverage and take full legal responsibility for fchan. if that is not acceptable for you, you will have to live with these rules.

re bans: as far as i am aware we have not banned anyone for discussing the sl matter, unless they got insulting or spamming in the process.

tl;dr: lol morality, this is about our ass versus your masturbation, and your masturbation loses.

> Yes, and your wonderfully mature counter arguments do a beautiful job illustrating your point.
i respond with roughly the same thoughtfulness i encounter and aim to provide at least some amusement for others reading this banter. :)

> If you had any truth in your statement, the 'white' would be to add an ACTUAL disclaimer, not a clickthrough. And you know this.
uh, no. as i said in the post before (which you do not seem to have read, else i wouldn't need to repeat this: we were told by an actual lawyer a year ago that the kind of disclaimer we employ is sufficient as far as american law is concerned. as i ALSO said before, if you think this has changed, links and references please.

> Furthermore, the morality I was attacking had nothing to do with kids and their parents.  It was attacking your morality of passing a rule with a weak defense, then refusing to discuss it.
sorry, i do not see how a rule that was based on actual lawyer input and previous cases can in any way have a weak defense. and... i'm discussing it with you now?

> It's a shame it was 'tl;dr', if you had 'r', maybe you'd have not responded.
it's a shame you misunderstood that, because i now have to wall-of-text a tl;dr, lol.
that comment was not in any way aimed at your post. in the contrary i have read it multiple times. that comment is aimed at my OWN post and provides a short and tongue-in-cheek recap of the whole text for those who do not care to read all of it, and also to refresh the mind of those who read all of it on the important parts of it.

[Addendum:  Documentation is, legally, required too, btw, for said lawyer.  Reason being that if he provides you fraudulent information and it causes you to suffer any consequences, you can hold him entirely responsible.  Misquoting the law IS against the law, as it hurts innocent people.]

Addendum3:  (I know, it's annoying now..)
Examples:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Atty_Reg/
http://www.iardc.org/
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/?page=302

Nearly all states require they be registered in some manner, if they are allowed to practice.  (And some, even if they don't currently practice.)

The argument IS that you're lying.  So, yeah.. calling you a liar and discrediting is kinda the goal... (I beleive here is where we say 'DUHR')

The point was to read it.  But I suppose that's beyond tongue-in-cheek humor you're good at.

So, I leave you with an awaiting email, and this:
<naet> i got my sat scores bak
<naet> 540 verball and 500 math
<naet> so thats liek 900 total
<Go> right

Email received and answered. Also, one little comment to your FA wall of text, which seems to be a major misunderstanding here.

I never said anything was illegal. I said we could be sued for it. These two concepts are VERY different thanks to the fucked up legislation of your country and you would do good to seperate them.

BTW, did you know:

I can link to pictures on FChan without seeing the disclaimer?
This is a violation.  It allows access (provided via others) to your content to minors.
Which, unless I misunderstand, is precisely what you're banning SL for.  [And I admit that I have, just to save the trouble of hosting it elsewhere]

It could also be used by someone to circumvent actual laws, not just civil ones, since it's hosted and posted on your site, and they're linking to it.

Uhm.. actually, I ahven't done jack shit to either IE or Firefox and both do it just fine.
I have a picture of myself linked to in my desc on Furcadia that's hosted off FChan until my site's back.  Noone sees the disclaimer or anything, just the pic.

Nono, you don't understand.

The site isn't imbedded or hosted.  It's just a URL link.
Click, and it goes to the site.
Tha endz0rz.

See?

I'm not all rant and no credibility.  I do know what i'm talking about!

Anyway, I need to get to work.  Ciao