Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:47:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1834 times
|
| |
|
|
Without knowing the details on how the moderating works, it does worry me a bit
that this image was visible on Brickshelf and accessible from the Recent folder
for some non-trivial length of time. In view of the massive unavailability of
folders long since uploaded, I was under the impression that that everything
was unsafe-until-moderated-otherwise, and it followed that new folders and
changed folders would also be non-public until moderated. Yet, in this
situation, an image is uploaded and is visible on Brickshelf, and only then
gets removed. Hmm.
I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image other
than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent that
I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream manufacturer
and LEGO.
Constantine
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Briefly addressing a couple of things, Kevin is your authoritative source...
>
> In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
>
> > Now I see, that you deleted a photo that I uploaded.
> > (http://www.neophilia.de/LEGO/yy_ich_und_mein_4105-Magnum.jpg) It's a
> > manipulated photo. I took a German ice cream advertising ("Ich & Mein
> > Magnum" = "Me & My Magnum" -- Magnum is the name of the ice cream) and
> > replaced the ice cream by a LEGO replica in my Picture Publisher software.
> > It's all in a folder tagged as a MOC. So why is this deleted without any
> > comment? Is it because a moderator didn't look at the picture but only at
> > the thumbnail?
>
> I did not delete this one. But I DID look at it pretty hard, several times
> and marked it "unsure" each time. NOT beccause it's porn. An image of a very
> pretty girl suggestively and lasciviously manipulating an upright round,
> hard object with an expression of joy on her face just before she takes it
> into her mouth is *not* porn. At least not these days it's not. It's just
> commercial art. :-)
>
> My issue with it was the trademarks and copyrights... Spoofing other
> people's ads may not be legal in the US and Kevin has said to watch out for
> stuff like that. So every time I looked at it, I ducked. I marked it unsure
> and went back to moderating. By the way I walked your entire directory and
> cleared everything else in it that hadn't yet been cleared.
>
> If it was deleted, someone else deleted it but I don't know who.
>
> There is no facility to cause a note to go to the submitter at this time. I
> suppose that would be a good enhancement... would you prefer that BrickShelf
> had been off the air till Kevin got the entire interface perfect?
>
> > Another point: Why all this mystery-mongering? When the server was taken
> > offline, thousands of LEGO fans all over the world wondered what happened.
> > Even in this thread you never told us the reason. Ok, eventually Larry
> > answered the repeated question -- after two days. Why didn't you place a
> > short note on www.brickshelf.com? Why don't you write at the same place,
> > that now uploads are moderated? Why don't you give us the criteria for
> > removing a file?
>
> I suspect he's pretty busy. I hesitated to answer at all. I'm scared that I
> am talking out my butt based on incomplete knowledge and worse, that I might
> say stuff that might jog Kevin's elbow and cause problems. That,
> regrettably, has happened because of stuff I said in the past, for which I
> apologise.
>
> ++Lar (who is glad that the hippocratic oath does not apply)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com... (...) then (...) The image was visible only to me and not public. (...) other (...) that (...) manufacturer (...) Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| Briefly addressing a couple of things, Kevin is your authoritative source... (...) I did not delete this one. But I DID look at it pretty hard, several times and marked it "unsure" each time. NOT beccause it's porn. An image of a very pretty girl (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
