• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

Count to ∞!

113579

Ah, @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. (y)
 
Last edited:
113589

MrsDogFantasy said:
How well behaved everybody is here, warms my heart
Click to expand...
Just a specific minimum amount of standards, I would guess.
Even as it doesn't surprise me that those are often mowed down by (different random) users in a forum with especially this topic.

CharleyOzvik said:
.. and now I'm here to make everyone misbehave.
Click to expand...
Ah, hello Charley!
I don't think you'll actually make us misbehave. You're quite well behaving yourself. (y)
 
YanchaOkami said:
Ah, @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. (y)
Click to expand...
113592

Content with watermarks from a black listed site is currently allowed so long as it follows all posting rules, aka no abuse ect.
 
113593

Mare Lover 1975 said:
Content with watermarks from a black listed site is currently allowed so long as it follows all posting rules, aka no abuse ect.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much, @Mare Lover 1975 ! That clears up a lot. (y)

CharleyOzvik said:
You just can't see what I'm doing under the table.
Click to expand...
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. :husky_wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top