NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8152422&postcount=10

Link to site containing nude pictures and porno pictures



Here he even admits he doesn't care what he's done.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8152436&postcount=14

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8152422&postcount=10

Link to site containing nude pictures and porno pictures



Here he even admits he doesn't care what he's done.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8152436&postcount=14
As I am at work in real-life, I cannot risk investigating this at the present time. The post in question has been deleted and "Bodies Without Organs" forumbanned pending a Moderator review.

I have asked for the next available Mod to assist in this matter.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/mich/
This link contains nudity (Michaelangelo's David, to be exact), but that is not pornography.

The link in question does not link to what would necessarily be pornography--naked protestors who are simply standing around being naked are not titillating to anyone but the most sexually frustrated. On the other hand, the site author was obviously aiming for titillation, with links to bondage sites and the constant call for "we want pictures!" (the poor guy).

As it is, at first glance, it simply seemed to be about nude protestors, which, in the proper contexts, could be appropriate (just like concerns about the 'too revealing' prom dress). However, it isn't because it doesn't actually offer any information and links rather blatantly to things that do openly violate our Terms of Service. I can see how this could be accidental, but next time one should stick to reliable news sources and make sure that the site's content is allowable for posting here.

It's not pornography (well, wasn't intended to be originally before the website author got to it), and therefore not an instant-delete; it is worth a warning however.

<snip>
That was fast!

Now everyone knows how Scolo manages to pwn the Tasklist all the time. :p

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Fair enough. The site crossed the line. I'm not arguing with the warning, but I wouldn't mind a bit of clarification here.

http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/mich/
This link contains nudity (Michaelangelo's David, to be exact), but that is not pornography.

Well, technically that doesn't really contain nudity, instead it contains pictures of a three-dimensional representation of nudity, and so is kind of confusing as an example.

The link in question does not link to what would necessarily be pornography--naked protestors who are simply standing around being naked are not titillating to anyone but the most sexually frustrated. On the other hand, the site author was obviously aiming for titillation, with links to bondage sites and the constant call for "we want pictures!" (the poor guy).

As it is, at first glance, it simply seemed to be about nude protestors, which, in the proper contexts, could be appropriate (just like concerns about the 'too revealing' prom dress). However, it isn't because it doesn't actually offer any information and links rather blatantly to things that do openly violate our Terms of Service. I can see how this could be accidental, but next time one should stick to reliable news sources and make sure that the site's content is allowable for posting here.

It's not pornography (well, wasn't intended to be originally before the website author got to it), and therefore not an instant-delete; it is worth a warning however.

Even after reading through this several times I still am unclear as to whether I got a warning on the basis of the sites which were linked from the page, or for the actual contents of the page?

You were warned for the content of the site you linked; while the actual content of the site (the protestors) was OK, but the adverts on that site were well over the border.

This is similar to when Lessr Tsurani linked a site featuring the Olson Twins which had pornographic popups; it's important to be sure, when you link a site, that not only the content but the advertising on that site is not going to get you in trouble.

~ Tsar the Mod.

You were warned for the content of the site you linked; while the actual content of the site (the protestors) was OK, but the adverts on that site were well over the border.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Thanks, that's what I thought initially, but this line seemed somewhat unclear:

It's not pornography (well, wasn't intended to be originally before the website author got to it), and therefore not an instant-delete; it is worth a warning however.

- which seemed to suggest that the non-link contents were non-pornographic, but still unacceptable.

My interpretation of that was that the content (naked protestors) was/is not pornographic before the website's author added the adverts ("got to it"), but with those adverts on the website it's breaking the rules.

~ Tsar the Mod.