Godlovesugly...

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

Yeah, chatroom is unmoderated, however, if a user has been banned from the forums his/her chatroom activities is also considered after 12 months time when review the case.

i did not know that thx for the info

 

[anon x]

if a user has been banned from the forums his/her chatroom activities is also considered after 12 months time when review the case.



FAO anon x, you should post a thread in site feedback / suggestions forum.
David seems too busy to check the pigsty.

f*** me:is that not taking things rather seriously? "Review the case"
What is this place,a a parole board ?

Just on that,KP.

 

[Kewpie]

f*** me:is that not taking things rather seriously? "Review the case"
What is this place,a a parole board ?

Just on that,KP.

Morrissey-Solo is a private property, membership is not a right, it is a privilege.

 

[anon x]

Morrissey-Solo is a private property, membership is not a right, it is a privilege.

I'd say membership was a bit of fun.

Jesus,you do take it seriously,don't you?

 

[anon x]

Yeah, chatroom is unmoderated, however, if a user has been banned from the forums his/her chatroom and mainpage activities are also considered after 12 months time when the administrator review the case.

Someone actually keeps a record of all of this ?
This is bizarre!
What happens in a (lol)"review" ?

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

Someone actually keeps a record of all of this ?
This is bizarre!
What happens in a (lol)"review" ?

dude, i dont wanna know

 

[anon x]

dude, i dont wanna know

:d lol !!!

How come my smiley thingies aren't working ?

Which committee do I go to voice my concerns ?
Can we have a public enquiry too?

 

[Kewpie]

:d lol !!!

How come my smiley thingies aren't working ?

Which committee do I go to voice my concerns ?
Can we have a public enquiry too?

You should either switch the brower or turn off your computer and log on again.

I have also same problem which is really annoying.

 

[iamnicola]

Reviewing a case?

This is all so "Unsolved Mysteries"!

 

[iamnicola]

:d lol !!!

How come my smiley thingies aren't working ?

Which committee do I go to voice my concerns ?
Can we have a public enquiry too?

You have to contact the PTA about that.

 

[nugz]

Gee, thanks.

haha dude. im really sorry. i totally didnt mean it like that. sometimes when you're drunk things don't always come out making sense. you know we're buddies. right?

funny thing is i was actually trying to defend you. and it just all came out a mess. haha

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

haha dude. im really sorry. i totally didnt mean it like that. sometimes when you're drunk things don't always come out making sense. you know we're buddies. right?

funny thing is i was actually trying to defend you. and it just all came out a mess. haha

aww Saint Nugzie and her drunken defenses of those that, well i'll just stop there

 

[Dave]

haha dude. im really sorry. i totally didnt mean it like that. sometimes when you're drunk things don't always come out making sense. you know we're buddies. right?

funny thing is i was actually trying to defend you. and it just all came out a mess. haha

Don't go changing to try to please me etc

 

[Dave]

If you are not genuinely interested in having conversations with other users, better not go to chatroom.

So if you are interested in having genuine conversations, better go to the chatroom?

 

[Arsenal]

I read the section in its entirety and do not see the exact line you are referring to. Would you mind posting the exact line(s) to which all this fuss is relating to?

My polite request for clarification on that exact section of the TOS seems to have gotten lost in the shit storm.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

My polite request for clarification on that exact section of the TOS seems to have gotten lost in the shit storm.

Section 6, item 13: "You agree to not use the Service to...collect or store personal data about other users"

Rather draconian, and unenforceable unless you repost the pics. But note that bookmarking the pics that were posted, then reposting the image URLs, does NOT appear to be against TOS. godlovesugly's mistake was rehosting the pics. Amateur.

 

[Arsenal]

Section 6, item 13: "You agree to not use the Service to...collect or store personal data about other users"

Rather draconian, and unenforceable unless you repost the pics. But note that bookmarking the pics that were posted, then reposting the image URLs, does NOT appear to be against TOS. godlovesugly's mistake was rehosting the pics. Amateur.

Well that affirms my previous belief that these rulings are nonsense. When one posts a photo on the internet, it is considered 'free use'. I challenge you to find a district or code of law that states otherwise.

For example: If I take a photo of myself with my digital camera and then put it online, it belongs to nobody. That is right, I do not own it. Without a clear copyright, that digital photo is considered free use.

A photo, without a copyright, is most certainly not "personal data", as it has no owner unless a copyright is clearly visible and legally binding.

Unless the mods have evidence proving otherwise, this seems like a a case of people making up a definition or meaning to a stated rule to suit their own needs, rather than following that rule as it is written.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

Well that affirms my previous belief that these rulings are nonsense. When one posts a photo on the internet, it is considered 'free use'. I challenge you to find a district or code of law that states otherwise.

For example: If I take a photo of myself with my digital camera and then put it online, it belongs to nobody. That is right, I do not own it. Without a clear copyright, that digital photo is considered free use.

A photo, without a copyright, is most certainly not "personal data", as it has no owner unless a copyright is clearly visible and legally binding.

But we all agreed to the TOS when we signed up, so whether it would be upheld in a court of law is immaterial.

Unless the mods have evidence proving otherwise, this seems like a a case of people making up a definition or meaning to a stated rule to suit their own needs, rather than following that rule as it is written.

Well, we all know that that goes on all the time here.

 

[Arsenal]

Well, we all know that that goes on all the time here.

That is my point. The TOS is open to interpretation. It has no clear meaning, despite what the mods proclaim. I've been on the net long enough to know what when someone posts a photo, without a copyright, you can do whatever the f*** you want with it, with zero legal repercussions.

If you post a photo of yourself, I can photoshop shitting dick nipples all over it, start a website called "NRITH iz a fag" and use the photo to proclaim you are a pedo who eats crap, and legally, you have zero recourse. Everyone who has been on the net more than 10 seconds knows this.

If you have photos that are clearly marked and copyrighted and choose not to divulge personal information, rather, I find that out through illegal methods then you have every right to get the authorities involved and have a clear case that would violate any TOS.

This seems to clearly be a case of 'selective interpretation' based on what the mods think is right or wrong, and not based on fact. Again, I challenge them to prove me wrong. If they can clearly do so, I'll gladly admit it.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

That is my point. The TOS is open to interpretation. It has no clear meaning, despite what the mods proclaim. I've been on the net long enough to know what when someone posts a photo, without a copyright, you can do whatever the f*** you want with it, with zero legal repercussions.

If you post a photo of yourself, I can photoshop shitting dick nipples all over it, start a website called "NRITH iz a fag" and use the photo to proclaim you are a pedo who eats crap, and legally, you have zero recourse. Everyone who has been on the net more than 10 seconds knows this.

If you have photos that are clearly marked and copyrighted and choose not to divulge personal information, rather, I find that out through illegal methods then you have every right to get the authorities involved and have a clear case that would violate any TOS.

This seems to clearly be a case of 'selective interpretation' based on what the mods think is right or wrong, and not based on fact. Again, I challenge them to prove me wrong. If they can clearly do so, I'll gladly admit it.

It's not just about what's legal; it's about what's right. Re-posting, or editing, pics and/or other info that someone posted publicly is just bad form, and while it may not violate #13 of section 6, it could certainly violate #12 (harrassment). Someone posted all of my public Amazon.com & LinkedIn profile info over on the SoLow alternative for trolls, and it was clearly intended as harrassment, regardless of whether I posted that info publicly in the first place. (Of course, the genius who posted it didn't even read it carefully enough to spell my name correctly, but I guess that's par for the course.)

And let me beat Daveby stating that I'm not a hypocrite--my IP-reading "trap" was technically not a violation of the TOS, but it was wrong to do. I apologized; he didn't accept it; ergo, he's still a dick. I can say that here, right? As long as I don't mention K----e?