fchan

discussion

SL?

Pages:1 41
9Report(capped)
Raven//Puck at 3 Jul 2007: 22:41

>>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!

10Report
at 3 Jul 2007: 23:46

>>9
hahaha

11Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 05:23

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.

12Report(capped) (sage)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 08:22

Ok, stop this bullshit here right now.

Yes, it's illegal to expose minors. However a simple disclaimer removes all liability we have there. Parents have to do some part of the duty too. As long as we ban kids who manage to disclose their age, we're completely in the free.

But, AS I EXPLAINED IN MANY MANY WORDS ON /FAQ, WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ: SL = CHAT = phone call = really fucking good reason to sue someone. Pics of SL sex of minors on fchan = aiding = really fucking good reason to sue us too.

End of line. Please go learn yourself a book, then become an hero.

P.S.: If SL manages to introduce an age check system that i cannot circumvent, then we'll allow SL porn. Not before.

13Report
Sen at 4 Jul 2007: 08:53

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

14Report
at 4 Jul 2007: 13:07

Its always about money.  If you can get sued over it, there will be a rule against it.  If there's a rule against it, its likely because someone can/has sue/d over it.  Simple logic.  Welcome to capitalism.

BTW, I don't like, but I respect, the SL rule.  I've personally age verified my partners on SL, but I don't plan to post any of the pics to share.  Too hard to prove it to anyone else.  "Well, how do you know he's not underaged?"  "Cause I've fucking screwed him like a schoolgirl in RL, and he's no where near underaged?"   "Oh."  ^.^

15Report(capped)
Raven//Puck at 4 Jul 2007: 16:02

>>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!

16Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 17:13

Nice attitude.  Shows a lot about the truth behind your stance.


*Waits for Aborn for disagreeing*

17Report(capped)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 17:18

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

18Report(capped)
Raven//Puck at 4 Jul 2007: 17:27

>>17

I've been wondering the same thing for a long time, now.

*awaits some kind of biting, sarcastic retort about how evil we are for some random reason*

19Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 17:33

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.

20Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 18:25

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=10289&pid=172689&;

Addendum, and a bit more ellaboration.

21Report(capped)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 18:58

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.

22Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 19:16

Yes, and your wonderfully mature counter arguments do a beautiful job illustrating your point.

If you had any truth in your statement, the 'white' would be to add an ACTUAL disclaimer, not a clickthrough.
And you know this.

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.

It's a shame it was 'tl;dr', if you had 'r', maybe you'd have not responded.

23Report(capped)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 19:35

> 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.

24Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 19:50

I'd like to know the registration of the state your lawyer is registered in.  These are required for the lawyer to provide anytime he provides legal advice to which defense is centered.  If such aren't provided, chances are it's an e-lawyer, or one who is malpracticing.  How duped have you been?  Or is there even a lawyer?

And insulting me doesn't make you any more credible.  It only attempts to hurt my credibility.

And yes, i'm sure your tl;dr response was in no way using inflammatory remarks about my masturbatory habits and was not, in any way, making light of the situation.


I've done my peice.  We're just bickering now.  I finished my peice with my FA-forum link.

It's your users that decide now.  So, feel free to keep attacking.

You've been questioned as an authority figure.  Provide proof or accept criticism.

25Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 19:52

[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.]

26Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 19:54

[Addendum2:  There are a couple excepted states, since it's state law.  But with those exceptions, all states require a public registration to practice.  So, again, provide plz.  It's the only thing proving they're a lawyer and not just another schmut, or even yourself.]

27Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 19:57

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.)

28Report(capped)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 20:02

Heh, you can't provide any real arguments anymore, so you try to claim i'm lying and otherwise discredit me.

As to the credibility of said lawyer: Send me an email and i will see about getting you the relevant info.

Yes, i made parts of my posts rather tongue-in-cheek and not serious at all, however the sole reason for that is to make an otherwise completely boring and trite thread at least partly enjoyable.

As to your FA link: That's nice. b-b However we are on fchan here. :)

29Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 20:07

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

30ReportAborn!
Aborn! at 4 Jul 2007: 20:12

Aborn! - Behave, no need to insult him.

31Report(capped)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 20:26

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.

32Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 20:34

In that case you're totally hopeless.

I can sue McDonald's for spilling coffee on myself, and winning.

Or winnebego (FOUR TIMES) for failing to mention Cruise Control will not drive/park for you while you go to the back to cook.

Or Duracell for not telling me not to stick AA's up my nose.

Or McDonald's for not telling me their food is fattening.

And the list goes on...
And on...
and on...


Protecting yourself from a lawsuit is like protecting yourself from air.  Either way, you lose.
(Which leads back to argument #1:  Why pick one thing and not another?  You said there's only black/white, well, what makes SL porn black but HAVING porn not?  I could sue you for any of a thousand stupid reasons.  Even if they didn't win, you'd be locked into court with it.)

33Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 20:39

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.

34Report(capped)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 20:57

> In that case you're totally hopeless.
Please read this and think about it for a while before you begin citing urban myths or incomplete cases at me...
http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

> 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.
Uh, no. Seriously, that you think this means one of two things: You have serious problems with reading comprehension or you have treated everything i had written, right up to the /faq post, as TL;DR and need to actually read it.

And yes, i know you can link to fchan stuff directly without having to go through the disclaimer. However that requires in every case either the use of a completely non-standard web browser, some manual adjustments on the browser that are not normal in any case, or a third-party server.

35Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 21:03

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.

36Report(capped)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 21:15

>>35
Simply embedding it on other sites works, i know. The disclaimer pops up only if you actively visit the site itself. As i said, you need to employ third-party servers to circumvent it.

37Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 21:16

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.

38Report(capped)
Xenofur at 4 Jul 2007: 21:22

You're right. Rechecked the regexp filters and that was a hole that needed to be left open due to technical restrictions. Will be plugged later on when hentaiplanet and no-ip are phased out of use in favor of fchan.me

39Report
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 21:39

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

40Report (sage)
Hellfire at 4 Jul 2007: 21:39

>>24 >>25 >>26 >>27 Lawyer's registration and documentation is required only for the client, not random people on the internet who decide to ask the client who their legal consul is. (And who seem to think they are lawyers themselves)

>>37 The httpd redirects requests by browsers (based on USER-AGENT) for top-level directory with blank REFERRER to disclaimer.  This is all that is required by law.  Now, if you would like to provide case law and show where this has changed, by all means, please show us.  A couple of my friends would also like to know as it would mean their lawyers have been wrong (or perhaps lying? is it a conspiracy!?) as well.

If unwilling or unable to provide case law, please go away. :)

41Report
Falcon at 4 Jul 2007: 21:44

Actually Axle, if what you say is true... you're the one who linked the page, not Fchan. That would make you the liable party (and if you've done so on another site for which you've entered an agreement on terms, I'm sure the matter is discussed explicitly within said terms). If I glue pages from Penthouse on the walls of a school house, it isn't Larry Flint who's going to be liable.

As well, internet law is federal not state, and you're mixing civil law with criminal law. Despite the ridiculous examples of frivilous suits one could file that you give, I'm certain I could find case law... distinguishing cases for almost any kind of civil action, where what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation' is discussed and outlined.

42Report(capped)
Raven//Puck at 4 Jul 2007: 21:52

Oh Axle, Axle.. please, do not further embarrass yourself. Please. For your own sake. You said several, several posts ago you were done. Yet you continue. What does that say about your word? Tsk tsk.

I also do not see any of your points. You speak of morality on a site full of people that largely tend to believe that such an idea is merely subjective in nature. So few of them truly care what you have to say. Much to your surprise, I do care. However, the fact you have been so incredibly difficult and unwilling to engage in any one on one conversation with me has dulled my interest in discussing it with you, as I now see you as nothing more than a troll, one who is merely angry that he did not get his way in some manner.

Also, I do find it a bit funny that you link to a post on FA in reference to us. We have had documented support from the Dragoneer right here on our own site, in which he has stated that we do a good job and he enjoys Fchan. So if you are trying to pit the two sites against the other, please stop. We work well together and accept each other, and there is no true arguing with that (if that's what you were intending).

43Report (sage)
Axle at 4 Jul 2007: 22:32

Nice, Raven//Puck.  Please don't lie.
You have never asked me to contact you about this matter, because you see.. it's the first time i've brought it up.

Unless there was another issue you're referring to?  Only issue I ever remember is my complaining about malware-ads on the site, which were promptly deleted and no response ever given.

My email is, and has been for years, janglur@gmail.com   Publicly and conspicuously posted, and open to anyone who wants to contact me.

Furthermore, you clearly didn't read a /single fucking word/ of any of my posts, especially the FA one.  The first line there stated very clearly to anyone on most any spectrum of IQ that the rant was reguarding no site specifically, but many sites.  FChan is but one of them, due to the SL issue.  There are many other sites with many other reasons.  And, frankly, Fchan isn't the worst of them.


But, obviously, admin here have problems with reading comprehension.  The unbecoming insults also show issues with maturity and an inability to act appropriately in public.

So yes, I am done.  Snapshot the thread, i'm sure it'll bump off soon.

44Report
M'aiq the Liar at 4 Jul 2007: 22:33

Axle.  You fail.  Go away.  Your arguments have been shot full of holes, set ablaze, and urinated upon.

45Report
Sen at 4 Jul 2007: 22:48

"the rant was reguarding no site specifically, but many sites."

Yes, and you're arguing it *here*. AND insulting people while you're making the argument. Sorry but you're quickly losing by losing your temper in such a way.

46Report (sage)
Hellfire at 4 Jul 2007: 22:56

>>43 "0nly issue I ever remember is my complaining about malware-ads on the site, which were promptly deleted and no response ever given."
     http://fchan.me/read.php/dis/1182552264/l40
     http://fchan.me/read.php/dis/1182826703/l40
     http://fchan.me/read.php/dis/1161281934/l40
     http://fchan.me/read.php/dis/1173830861/l40
     http://fchan.me/read.php/dis/1178834410/l40
Which thread discussing malware was "deleted", now? I'm having trouble misplacing it.

Is it just me, or does the topic and focus of this thread seem to jump every time you don't get your way? Lets go back to legal issues, you were wrong back there too, but you seemed to rant a bit less. Where's that case law, by the way?

47Report(capped)
Raven//Puck at 4 Jul 2007: 22:59

>>43

Axle, you WOUND me. Those are such horrible things to say. I thought better of you than that. :(

Of course I have read the post. The problem is what >>45 said: You brought an issue here from FA and waved it in our faces. We all know what you were trying to do, and that wasn't very nice at all. So I was merely making a disclaimer. The way you responded was very mean.

As for contacting me, I never asked you before. Let me explain why: People are always open to contacting me. Always. I am always here for those have questions, as long as I have the time (right now I am not taking many emails due to dealing with quite a bit off-site, but am randomly on IRC, and also on /dis, right now, trying to explain things to you). Ask anyone who has gotten to know me, I am a very kind person who goes out of my way for people. In fact, I plan on being a Founder for FA:U because I feel it is incredibly important to the fandom.

I support our fandom and I support the artists in it. I am even allowing you to express your opinion, even though I think you are doing it poorly, in a rather nasty manner, while leaving in a real huff. However, that is your right to do which I am very kindly allowing you. So I do not understand your anger at all, I'm afraid. :/

So no, I do not lie. You merely misunderstand my intentions and decided to attack me. Which is not very nice at all. Not one bit, no. But I still wish you well and hope that you're able to reconcile your worries! No one wants to carry things like that around with them. It's not healthy, believe me.

Take care, my friend. *bows*

48Report(capped)
FoxStar at 5 Jul 2007: 05:59

The fact that there's 40+ posts on this topic all because one git can't get his rocks off to badly animated SL smut makes me fear for mankind in a fashion I have not for years.

49Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage