I just read the new ToS

B_cigarbabe

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
3,872
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
183
Location
Boston,Mass.
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
If you mean about mentioning the other place, then no, it's not presumptuous, it's merely true. I've linked to the other place before and had the link removed by a mod who said told me explicitly that Rob_E does not allow links to the other place. I suggested that this rule be added to the TOS. It appears it now has.

Wow ain'tchoo da lucky un'.
Ah gots me a warning anin't wudn't eben writtin yet.
Dayum dood! :smileeek:
C.b B. :fu:
 

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
295
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm just waiting for one of the moderators who has such an obvious axe to grind with me (there are more than one) to take steps to ban me. I can hear the vibrations from here. Ah well, tacky is as tacky does.

I see axeholes in your challenge.
Wide enough to drive a hickboy through.

cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
I take offense when someone tells me that I must not be suited for this job because I want it so badly. And yes, I wanted to be a moderator. I applied on my own accord. I've been wanting to be a moderator on this site since shortly after I joined two and a half years ago. To be honest, it had gotten to the point that if I DIDN'T get a moderator position, then I probably would've left the place altogether. I hadn't been around much when I applied anyway. I wanted to be involved with helping to make the forum a better place than it was.

Then you need to grow a pair, Meg. It is not all about you and I expect the vast, vast majority of the board (including Nick) had no idea that you wanted to be a mod - so why the hell take his comment personally?

Also, on a side note, I did know you wanted to be a mod and I was extremely pleased for you when I saw your name on that list - since you've been a mod though I have seen almost exactly fuck all of you. You hardly ever post and (apart from this thread) I've not seen you come in to a thread as a mod at all - and even here you came in to defend yourself and have stuck around to argue the 'site(s) that defame' rule. Now maybe I have missed something, but there has been plenty of controversy since you and the others joined the team and I've seen everyone but you moderating the board. I know stuff goes on that I do not see, I don't always agree with the actions of the others that I have seen - but I have seen them, Meg.

I find it rather presumptuous of you to come to this conclusion.

Oh bollocks! Come on - do you think we are all thick. That's the most obvious conclusion there is. I know there have been two blogs recently, that I have heard about, that attacked a specific member (each) but this is clearly the Size Matters rule. Just call it what it is. And midseye's point above is totally valid. Being vague about it makes it impossible to enforce

The presumptuous part is assuming that we put that stipulation in the ToS simply because of the *other* site. That simply isn't true. If you or anyone else chooses to believe that, then feel free. However, I know otherwise. :wink:

Well - that's really helpful, Meg - that really makes the board a better place. More 'cloak and dagger the mods know stuff you don't neener-neener' attitude. Why not explain to us why 'that simply isn't true'?

I could understand 'no linking to content that defames LPSG and/or its members' - that would cover those recent childish blogs and anything silly mentioned elsewhere about LPSG. But this rule uses the word 'sites' - which is a very broad brush, too broad, to echo mindseye once again. Freddie has clearly said above (and other mods have said in the past) Rob_E wants no links to Size Matters. Fine, that is his right, that's totally fine - but you need to call it what it is; no links to defaming content and no links to that one site no matter what the content. That's not hard.

That's your presumptive style and it's in error.

It was also a joke, Mary Jane. Cool your paws :rolleyes:

Just because *snip* not a lock.

You would have done better with me if you hadn't attempted to explain it. Now I just see back-scrabbling and am starting to think there really is something behind it all.

Secondly, the mod board decisions are by consensus. Many of the United States Supreme Court decisions are 5 to 4 decisions.

Funniest. Analogy. EVER. :lmao:
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Whatever... it's ironic, because the gutter-sniping, bitching and picture posting at Size Matters make LPSG look good in comparison. I mean... there isn't much chance of losing membership to BD, is there?

I don't care... other people's paranoia is always good for a laugh.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
That's ludicrous. There's a thread in the Women's Issues section where someone wanted to know what to call our hoo-has, and one of the popular terms was "cunt". It says cunt at least a dozen times in that thread!

But don't say the "flower" word. We hate that.

See my infraction? (image attached below) The only inappropriate language I used, to the best of my recollection, was "cunt". That infraction was not just a point; it was a temporary banning (later rescinded.)
I have a question regarding copyrighted material in galleries. Obviously copyrighted images are rampant in galleries - is this breaking the ToS?
Careful asking that question - this whole thread will be deleted, and you banned.

Now, I'm having some trouble reconciling these two quotes:

The presumptuous part is assuming that we put that stipulation in the ToS simply because of the *other* site. That simply isn't true. If you or anyone else chooses to believe that, then feel free. However, I know otherwise. :wink:

About other sites. Rob made it a rule that links to a particular site owned by a former LPSG member would not be allowed. There have been other situations in the past that convinced the mods that this addedndum was needed.
Perhaps I'm simpleminded, and these aren't really contradictory, but will someone please help me out?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Whatever... it's ironic, because the gutter-sniping, bitching and picture posting at Size Matters make LPSG look good in comparison. I mean... there isn't much chance of losing membership to BD, is there?

I don't care... other people's paranoia is always good for a laugh.
And you know this because you've spent time there, or because it's what you've heard, or because you read a few isolated posts there?
 

B_JasonDawgxxx

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
5,269
Media
0
Likes
942
Points
148
Age
39
Location
Beverly Hills Calif
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
If people dont like it here at LPSG and they do NOTHING but bitch and moan about it, then dont log on to it. It's not as if someone has a gun to anyones head and is forcing them to come here.

As a member here it just gets annoying seeing people putting the mods, the site etc down. Its really very simple, if you hate lpsg so much than dont log on to it.

Ok I'm off my soap box now lol, Jason.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Jason, you had been a member for just over a month when you got on your soap box, and started telling people (including me) "how things are done at LPSG" and what was and was not appropriate. I see some things change very little over time. (Compare our join dates, for a good idea of who has more extensive knowledge of "how things are done.")
 

B_JasonDawgxxx

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
5,269
Media
0
Likes
942
Points
148
Age
39
Location
Beverly Hills Calif
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Jason, you had been a member for just over a month when you got on your soap box, and started telling people (including me) "how things are done at LPSG" and what was and was not appropriate. I see some things change very little over time. (Compare our join dates, for a good idea of who has more extensive knowledge of "how things are done.")

Funny how people remember things in a different way. DC Its really rather simple. If someone hates it here so much, then they shouldnt log on to the site.

If you feel the need to further put me down then by all means have at it. I'm rather used to the slings and arrows by now. I made the point I was trying to make. Jason.
 
Last edited:

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
And I made my point, too, Jason. You had complaints before anyone even knew who you were. I asked you at that time, "why did you join if you don't like it?"

It goes both ways. You demanded that the site conform to what you wanted it to be. Whether you remember it that way or not is not relevant. It is what happened, the post archives would make that pretty obvious.

And please point out to me where I have ever said I hate it here.

As far as I know, as long as I don't violate the ToS, I am free to post what I please... unless you know something I don't.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them. Don't presume to tell me whether or not I should log on to this site. I have a lot more invested here than do you.
 

B_JasonDawgxxx

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
5,269
Media
0
Likes
942
Points
148
Age
39
Location
Beverly Hills Calif
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
And I made my point, too, Jason. You had complaints before anyone even knew who you were. I asked you at that time, "why did you join if you don't like it?"

It goes both ways. You demanded that the site conform to what you wanted it to be. Whether you remember it that way or not is not relevant. It is what happened, the post archives would make that pretty obvious.

And please point out to me where I have ever said I hate it here.

As far as I know, as long as I don't violate the ToS, I am free to post what I please... unless you know something I don't.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them. Don't presume to tell me whether or not I should log on to this site. I have a lot more invested here than do you.

DC I did not in any of my posts bring your name into what I had to say. You have brought mine up twice now. I stand by what I said. If someone doesnt like LPSG then they shouldnt log on to the site.

I have no clue why you feel the need to turn this into a personal attack. But by all means have at it. Ciao Jason.
 

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
268
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Jason I really don't see DC's posts as an attack on you. He's merely responding to the points you have made. It is obvious that you both see what has happened in the past from differing perspectives.

Where you have a right to express your thoughts and opinions others have a right to see things differently and say so.
 

jeff black

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Posts
10,432
Media
3
Likes
179
Points
193
Location
CANADA
I'd like some clairification on something, please.

In the ToS, it says that I am not allowed to post copywritten images, correct?

Does that mean that I can't have pictures of celebrities in my avatar or gallery? I'm a touch confused on what the difference is.

For example, I noticed that Mr.Snakey recently removed a photo from a Mario Lopez thread, while others were left behind. What makes that one picture removeable? How am I supposed to know what's copywritten and what isn't?
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Well, jeff - a rule of thumb would be if you are not sure don't post it.

I think there is an awful lot of copyrighted stuff posted here and it is going to be a tough one for the mods to police. I think they are going to have to DUN-DUN-DUUUUHHHHH trust the members to make their own judgement calls.

Either that or not allow images of any kind. :cool:

Edit: Of course this is Rob_E's place and he's the one who'll have to bear the consequences if there is ever an argument over a copyrighted image, so what he says goes - But seriously, it is going to be really, really tough on the mods to police this copyright thing - there is just too much content on this site. If every avatar, every gallery image and every attached image had to be viewed by a moderator before it was cleared to be published here there would have to be several times as many mods to handle the workload. Consider the time it would take to check into each picture to make sure it wasn't copyrighted. It may genuinely be that the only way to ensure the copyright thing is to ban images from everywhere bar the galleries and keep those limited to a certain number. I'd hate to see that happen, but I don't see how it can work otherwise.
 
Last edited:

jeff black

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Posts
10,432
Media
3
Likes
179
Points
193
Location
CANADA
Well, jeff - a rule of thumb would be if you are not sure don't post it.

I think there is an awful lot of copyrighted stuff posted here and it is going to be a tough one for the mods to police. I think they are going to have to DUN-DUN-DUUUUHHHHH trust the members to make their own judgement calls.

Either that or not allow images of any kind. :cool:

And that's a great though, MB. However, since I don't know the difference.....I feel as though I could be in trouble.

I mean, won't this rule affect the celebrity endowment section of the site? If we can't post pictures of cock/ass shots from movies and tv, then we're just talking about it.

What if I'm having a discussion about someone and I want to show who he/she is, so I submit a photo from a website that has pictures? Bannable offense?
 

B_JasonDawgxxx

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
5,269
Media
0
Likes
942
Points
148
Age
39
Location
Beverly Hills Calif
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Jason I really don't see DC's posts as an attack on you. He's merely responding to the points you have made. It is obvious that you both see what has happened in the past from differing perspectives.

Where you have a right to express your thoughts and opinions others have a right to see things differently and say so.

Of course others have a right to say as they wish, as do I. I just dont think attacking me is the way to go here. My point was and still is this. If a person doesnt like the mods,the site etc. NOBODY is forcing them to log on, Jason.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
And that's a great though, MB. However, since I don't know the difference.....I feel as though I could be in trouble.

I mean, won't this rule affect the celebrity endowment section of the site? If we can't post pictures of cock/ass shots from movies and tv, then we're just talking about it.

What if I'm having a discussion about someone and I want to show who he/she is, so I submit a photo from a website that has pictures? Bannable offense?

Well - to discuss a person or to show that person's endowment you don't neeed to publish the photo at LPSG - you can just link to a site that has the image. Just like with the articles - provide a link, but not the full article. Maybe for the picture you could take a small section of that picture - just the cock - and link to the full thing - I dunno if it works the same way for pics or if a partial reproduction would still be a violation.
 

jeff black

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Posts
10,432
Media
3
Likes
179
Points
193
Location
CANADA
Well - to discuss a person or to show that person's endowment you don't neeed to publish the photo at LPSG - you can just link to a site that has the image. Just like with the articles - provide a link, but not the full article. Maybe for the picture you could take a small section of that picture - just the cock - and link to the full thing - I dunno if it works the same way for pics or if a partial reproduction would still be a violation.

A brilliant idea, Miss Banisters... but.... I also noticed that Snakey removed a link to a photo at a site, and stated it was copyright issues. So, I'm still lost as to why some links are ok and others aren't.

I'm all for the site linking as it keeps people posting photos, but I am still confused. I'm sure a mod will pop in eventually and try to explain how it works.