 | | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: rewrite squad car
|
|
Anthony Garrison wrote: Hmm, can we have this obvious SPAM deleted? I know Lugnet does not normally delete posts, but this is eggregarious. Frank (18 years ago, 30-Nov-06, to lugnet.duplo, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Hi David, thank you very much for your suggestions. (...) I guess I catch it. Well, the basically (and let's face it: the theoretically) requirement is: "By using LUGNET, be at least 18 years old. Otherwise ask your parents for permission". If they (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) You're right, that's not an issue, NFW. (...) I guess I know it, one could consider it as "bad taste", but as far as I remember, it was made too simple to be seriously glorifying violence. (...) It launched a discussion, but definitive is (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hey, I guess I'm okay with Rene's description, but as Didier said, this will come down to theory vs practice. I'm sure there would be no problem with something (URL) a battle scene>. Almost everthing I could imagine would fall into this realm. (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) I would be really happy if this particular issue would be straightend out. As have had causing a big problem with this myself, making clear what this all means would be great. I mean, I posted my MOC for sale in a theme group, with an intended (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
A few comments: (...) I realize that this was in the old version of the document, however I think it might be good to change it to be a bit more proactive. As in "By posting, if you are under 18, you are acknowledging that you have your parent or (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) ... (...) I'm not surprised. Administrative stuffs are not of such a high importance for most of the LEGO builders, collectors, etc. (...) Theory and practice. There is more than a gap between them. I'm quite confident in the fact that this (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hi Steve, things are never as bad as they seem. Though I reserve the right to cancel s.th., it doesn't mean that I make use of it, nowhere near. And for another thing: Nothing has really changed regarding this matter, it's more clear only. The (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
snipped a lot of stuff (...) You are not the only one with definite concerns about this change. I can understand that Rene must operate with the law. But LUGNET's (prior) strong stand against censorship is a big deal to me. So this change, along (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that no one has commented more on this particular update. This seems overly restrictive and I'm not exactly sure how I feel about LUGNET terms now being based on German law. Am I the only one that sees a serious (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Thanks for the clarification, Rene. I'm glad to hear that the German laws against Nazi symbols aren't as restrictive as I had feared. Marc Nelson Jr. (URL) Marc's Creations>> (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hi Bruce, that's a well justified question. Basically, this astriction arised out of the German "Protection of Young Persons Act". There's an addendum called "Jugendmedienschutz-...tsvertrag" (word-by-word translation would cause nonsense, but (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) I think something like 9.3 While the ultimate decision on market posts rests with the Admin of LUGNET, decisions will be made according to the guidelines found at URL which should be obeyed at all time. would be better. Tim (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Hi Tim, Frank, thanks for bringing this up. (...) I like this idea very much. So the ToU could say (note 9.3.): Do not post information or material for commercial purposes which is not reasonably related to LEGO toys or which contains advertising (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hey Rene, Things look pretty good. Could we have a clarification on "glorifying violence"? Many (most?) official themes and AFOL MOCs have a level of violence, whether it be knights with swords, pirates with cannons, or space ships with (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Hi Kelly, (...) Either I'm stumbling over for myself, or somebody is sending an email or there's a request in lugnet.admin. These are possibilities. Others, like just posting a reply to a message in question and keeping it within (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hi Marc, since I accepted responsibility, I thought about things like this and I always kept exactly this specific example in mind. So now somebody catched me on the hop finally :-) As you may know, dealing with all kinds of issues regarding (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
--various snippage-- (...) Thinking on this particular issue I think I would prefer an extra set of market guidelines sitting outside the main TOS. What if Factory starts paying out an authors share? Then it becomes more grey since for some people (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Factory is a bit of a grey area. Given that the poster doesn't (currently) stand to benefit from the sales, and given that the purpose is to point out the existence of a new model, I think that's ok. That's no different than pointing to Shop (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hi Frank, Looking at your suggestions for sales posts it seems as though MOC announcements/ad combined posts would be unallowed in most groups. Personally I would prefer that they should be allowed in the relavent announcement group provided (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Some thoughts on the discussion group terms: #7: clarify to allow use of FTX. #9.2: I think it would be reasonable to allow auction postings in groups that specifically allow them, though it should be pointed out that set of groups would generally (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hello Rene, The new ToU does seem more clear and concise, although there is one area that I think could use some clarification. At the bottom of the T&C block is the new (and IMO much-needed) sentence: "LUGNET reserves the right to cancel (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
What effect (if any) does this change have on things like (URL) this>? Marc Nelson Jr. (URL) Marc's Creations>> (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Hi, due to the fact that this site is now subjected to German law, there are new ToU for LUGNET. NEW (URL) OLD (URL) The ToU are now more clear, changes are as follows: Changes in "OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS" The headline is no longer "Overview and (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
[snip] Thanks for the positive feedback, Janey. -Suz (18 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) It's as the others in this thread said. The "murfling" was done in the past. It's not something being done on posts right now. If it were to be adopted, I'm sure users would be notified. I don't know why they were not before the act was (...) (18 years ago, 1-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) Many parts snipped out, just to shorten things up. You made some great points and reminded my why I continue to return to Lugnet, and thank you for taking the time to respond so throughly. (...) Yes, totally. Both of those issues concern me a (...) (18 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) quick answers: (...) no. (...) not yet. (...) no. At least, not a different one. 'updating' would probably be good though. (...) completely understandable. I agree. (...) is it the lack of clarity then? potential for abuse? ..? (...) I (...) (18 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) I really can't see why this is so difficult to understand, Eric. No-one had a problem with it when you first released it because it came under 'fair use' and you weren't trying to make money out of it. It wasn't a coincidence that concerns (...) (18 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Yes. What do you propose is done about it? Let it go? Again? How many times should it be let go before he is held accountable? (...) 'Gang of trolls'? I speak for no-one but myself. Look, Eric is the problem here, Lar. There's been plenty of (...) (18 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
For the record: There is no point in being concerned that something new is being imposed. That post was first murfled a long time ago. I know that to be the case, because I did it. It may have been unmurfled/murfled a few times since, or not, I have (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Hmmm, well lets list this so-called "Gang of trolls" shall we? (In no particular order) (URL) Timothy Gould> (URL) Soren Roberts> (URL) Mark Neumann> (URL) David Koudys> (URL) Jeff Stembel> (URL) Keith Goldman> (URL) Bryce McGlone> (URL) (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) The way Lugnet is built, any changes like murlfing or editting of one's post and including FTX format, won't work in NNTP. Back when I'd chat with Todd often, I'd give him ideas on improvements to Lugnet's software, and many of those ideas (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) The murfle concept was originally thought up way back when we had an Admin team. I forget who had the idea, but Todd named it (it has that sort of Todd flare to it). The concept was exactly as Tim described it - a compromise between (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) ...snip... (...) ...snip... (...) I might be speaking out of turn, but it's my understanding that for testing purposes, some of the posts that were very clearly out of bounds of the ToS were murfled during the development of this function. I (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) It seems to me the message remains the same on the NNTP server, and more importantly the search index, so searching for any word in the original post will retrieve it. In fact, searching for one of the known "questionable" words in the post (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) I listen to Larry. I offer this: Please excuse my perceived auction spam. Respect my follow up and my intentions not to get carried away. Rather understand I feel must reach a core audience that may not have known about it otherwise. As for (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) Tim, I agree, to a point, I don't really care if LUGNET decides that "murflement" is THEIR answer. I don't know Suz or Todd, to any great degree aside from having the pleasure of meeting them both, but I feel I have conversed with Todd enough (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
It's also curious that a search for "murfl" turns up nothing. Still, I think it's a good idea to rein in some of the meanness... (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Hi Lar, My problem here is that Eric is entirely unrepentant of his own bad behaviour. He needs to be made to see that what he did was wrong. Many people have tried the polite approach to him on this and other topics, others (myself included (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Yep. To summarise, Eric's in the wrong regarding posting auctionspam, and regarding using material of others without permission, and you and your gang of trolls are using that as an excuse to be disruptive, make fun of him, and egg him on (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) I think it's a good compromise solution. It is still possible to see the original message but it requires action rather than accident. People are not meant to swear on Lugnet and if they don't pull their message then I think this is a fair (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) NO - it is NOT fun. SOMEBODY be the bigger man and just walk away, please. Mark LUGNET member 1634 (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Murfle?
|
|
Curious, I just happened to have this brought to my attention, (URL) and forgive me if this has been announced or discussed, but is this a new "feature" of Lugnet, and will we be seeing more of this in the future? Janey "Red Brick" (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms) !!
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Mark deserves a proper answer, as do the many people who have raised perfectly valid concerns only to have you either ignore them or post nonsense, if not outright abuse in response. (...) Another non-response. If it's still too complicated (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Reasoning in reverse. Morose. Who asked you? (...) I fully expect rablerousers like you to peep up. (...) The more you pay attention to my stuff, the more I make you my bitches. You know that saying? You should, you have been doing it well for (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Then perhaps you should've responded to (URL) this> with something other than "eh heh." What kind of way is that to treat a 'buddy'? (...) Thoughts entering your head do seem to be a rare occurrence. The fact is it was your duty to check first (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) hi, Tim. (...) Unrepentant to people who have axes to grind with me? Not likely. If you can understand that, then perhaps you'll start to get it. (...) That is a relative circumstance, not a direct officiality in anyway. As much love as I have (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Eric, Given the number of people complaining about your actions I would say you broke both the letter and the spirit of the 'law'. Is it comradery to do something that annoys many other people and be completely unrepentant about it? Is it (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
Tim, there is such a divide when it comes to the Letter of the Law and Spirit of the Law. The letter of the law is influential, no doubt, however the greater challenge is for us to embrace the spirit of comradery. As for others, libelous slander is (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
Dear Mark, (...) When have I flamed or trolled Eric on lugnet? I have flamed him once on jlug where flaming is allowed but only after he was rude to me. (...) I'm not really seeing your point here Mark unless you think I would like to turn lugnet (...) (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Small correction here - the "You" at the front of that sentence was supposed to be "People here". Not saying you (Tim) have not done it, but it has been done in great numbers by the group as a whole, and that is what I mean to convey. (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) The point is when Eric did it there was a flame storm because of it and the first time had really the same result. So your defense that this is somehow ok because he has been told before is off. Flaming and trolling somebody for any reason is (...) (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Brain Damage
|
|
(...) AND (...) AND (...) Careful with that axe, Eugene. Money Eclipse Wish You Were Here UmmaGumma Time? Shine On You Crazy Diamond "The Lunatic is on the grass"? "And when the cloudbursts thunder in your ear You shout and no-one seems to hear And (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) See that would have been better. Point well taken. (...) Though I do admit sitting down to build this model with the purposes of putting it up for sale. Perhaps that was just a little to much with the post. Still I have to try to get the model (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) Good solution. JOHN (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) Perhaps the best way if you want to announce a MOC and that it's for sale, is to announce the MOC in appropriate groups with no mention of the sale, then post a separate thread in .marketplace, referring to the MOC thread (or not, as you deem (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) Not at all. That you crossposted in .B-S-T is irrelevant (though that is THE appropriate place for that particular post). (...) Yeah, and that is what I meant about "clever posters". One can announce an MOC and talk about it and whatnot, and (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, John Neal wrote: I thought if I included the Marketplace/sale/trade/ newsgroup I covered myself. Perhaps if I tried to tone it down a bit and just mention the model is for sale near the end of the post? I rather not have the (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf Find, and Insulting other people's friend's
|
|
(...) Egad. (URL) Time flies> JOHN (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) Perhaps a determining factor is who potentially stands to profit from the announcement-- the poster or the reader. (...) The key word is "implication". In this instance, his solicitation was in no uncertain terms-- the very reason for the (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf Find, and Insulting other people's friend's
|
|
(...) I find nothing wrong with Soren as a role model, and thank him for showing me how to make a mech. I'm well aware of the public facets of his character, and being 18, am quite self-posessed enough to choose what I allow to influence me. Do no (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) I understand, Stefan. And I am sorry if I came down on you too hard. In light of your action, my faith in you is now restored:-) Leg Godt, JOHN (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) John- Are these "for sale" posts to be forbidden too? Every time someone posts a description of a new LEGO set including its price and specifying the first day of sale and even saying where to buy it? (Hmmm, let's also eliminate those Shop @ (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) I never said it was an excuse. I was only offering an explanation to John. -Stefan- (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) Luckily you have left yourself the option of removing or changing the images outside of Lugnet. Not having read the TOS is not really an excuse (a reason maybe), ignorance of the law does not give you carte blanche to break it. Tim (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: (was Brickshelf find:) DON'T STEAL PEOPLE'S IMAGES
|
|
(...) Corny! You corn ball. Take the time for me, there's that axe again. Soren, buddy, pal, neighbor, peer, dude, if Stefan looks up to you, this is the time to show him the error of his way. Bafoon! Not take time to dual with your arch nemesis. (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) Not at all. Kev moderates 1,000s of images-- things do sneak through. (...) Examples? Without disciplinary action? (...) It's not my intention to button-push, but merely to point out that vulgar language is becoming more and more commonplace, (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) lol Okaay, wrong guy to ask:-) (...) Thanks for the offer, but that isn't really my cup of tea. (...) Well, there's a fair chance the builder doesn't even speak English... (...) Really. And what do you suppose it is? (...) Honestly, I have no (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) Actually, they're covered under fair use. The parody/satire clause, IIRC. (...) Because I'm not interested in a shitstorm. (...) I'd laugh my ass off. Besides, I've done far (URL) worse> (warning, really messed up adult content) than that (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
Moving back to admin.terms since this is not an off topic debate. The images do not *clearly* violate TOS if they have been moderated. Considering the size and obviousness of the lettering, it can't be argued that the admins didn't see it, and as (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) But aren't those types of edits the right of the creator alone? (...) Why not? (...) No "crime", but put it this way: how would you feel if somebody posted pics of their recreation of (URL) with a lewd caption on it? You might think it's (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) From the TOS: "You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
Which secion of the TOS do those images specifically violate? Perhaps I'm missing it, but I didn't see any that those were *clearly* in violation of. Jeff (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
I'm not going to take issue with the rest of this, but stolen? I think Stefan's edits, if anything, highlight the expressive quality of the poses. I wouldn't have posted them, myself, but I don't think they're some kind of crime. Soren (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) Fine fine, do you really need me or anyone to tell you what you did was not cool? No respect for the builder's copy written photos. No respect for the Terms of Service for Brickshelf, Maj.com, or Lugnet. No meaningful comment on the model (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) There is no need to apologize for having fun. That is why we are all here. But it is important that necessary we all have fun playing by the rules. That is what "leg godt" is all about. Some folks are a little more sensitive to "colorful" (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) If you thought it was funny, why reply with criticism? (...) Who says I don't? Soren, for example, is one of my favorite builders, and a person I look up to and admire and turn to for tutelage (is that even a word?), and in fact those are his (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) In fact, it is a direct violation of the TOS. I would suggest that the post be cancelled. Even the images are TOS violations of Maj.com. Conduct such as this is highly unbecoming and very disappointing, Stefan. JOHN (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
