Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:55:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4666 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:43:58AM +0000, John wrote:
> That's not the point. What are you saying? That because someone can
> legally get married at age 16, adult content on LUGNET should be made
> viewable by a 7 year old? Because a 17 year old knows about same-sex
> relationships, a 10 year old should be allowed to view graphic
> conservations about it?
Your whole argument seems to revolve around the idea that LUGNET will now have,
or already has, inappropriate "adult content" in the NG. If that is the case,
that's a violation of the TOS:
(do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous,
defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, or indecent
information of any kind...
And it should be dealt with as such. But that's not a good reason to change the
whole way the site works. Now, if you were advocating to change the TOS to
allow such content, that's a different story - but I don't think you are
advocating that?
So the whole discussion should assume that the TOS is followed. And if it is,
where's the problem? As Dave said:
> > Let's also not forget that as long as the TOS are followed, nothing
> > graphic will ever be posted in .LGBT, or anywhere on LUGNET, for
> > that matter.
>
> Not true. Consider <http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=26017
> this> recent exchange (notice LudiChris's assertion that virtually
> {nothing} is too graphic).
So if you think this is a TOS violation, why don't you bring it up to the
Admins? Do you not think they would deal with it, if it actually is "vulgar,
pornographic... or indecent"?
If they Admins disagree with you, though, then you can't cite it as an example
of graphic discussion.
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Please. Even the poster thought that the subject matter was getting (URL) too blue>(note his post script), but the admin apparently (URL) didn't>. (...) Well, let's be clear that the whole matter is entirely subjective anyhow... (...) Well, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) That's not the point. What are you saying? That because someone can legally get married at age 16, adult content on LUGNET should be made viewable by a 7 year old? Because a 17 year old knows about same-sex relationships, a 10 year old should (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
