113564
113577But I think you and me them for slightly different reasons.
Agreed.Love is love
The reasons don't matter lol
Just a specific minimum amount of standards, I would guess.How well behaved everybody is here, warms my heart
Ah, hello Charley!.. and now I'm here to make everyone misbehave.
113592Ah, @Mare Lover 1975 , a question came up: If there's a forum rule which forbids links / embedding / whatever from a specific four-letter page with two-letter number (you know which I mean, I'm sure), which unfortunately has / allows very much abusive stuff, as it doesn't get moderated / removed quite enough ..
.. but in the media upload rules there's no disallowing of a specific site as watermark mentioned, while the rules regarding abuse are clear ..
.. is it then following the rules if users (not me, but I saw them quite often) re-upload stuff which got watermarked by that site, even if it's non-abusive?
Or does the first rule exclude it for the idea that there should not be unrelated advertisement for a site which hosts a lot of abusing stuff?
This couldn't get answered clear by reading the rules even three times.. I'm still not sure if it falls under the "links"-disallowing.
Edit: If @FloofyNewfie reads it, I'm interested in your opinion as well.
Thank you very much, @Mare Lover 1975 ! That clears up a lot.Content with watermarks from a black listed site is currently allowed so long as it follows all posting rules, aka no abuse ect.
That is absolutely true. But as long as I can't see it, I won't misbehave by it. As such it doesn't matter - at least for me.You just can't see what I'm doing under the table.