In reply to:
Stupidity, no. Supidity, yes...
Wow. I must've misread that a hundred times …
I think the problem with the previous rules was that 1) the Mods all acted inconsistently with Adam's advice, and, what's worse 2) acted inconsistently with their *own* advice.
I wrote a post a few years ago which went through the baroque permutations of who said what, and who did what, and I've no wish to repeat it all here. But I think Adam's general rules are, in fact, useful, and consistent with the general opinion at TW:
In reply to:
[Adam] 1. Do not post your genitalia as inline images.
2. The correct method is to use a URL link preferably with some kinda prior warning (so people at work, uni, etc. know what they're getting).
Attachments, however, are something of a grey area, because no-one knows the specifics of Evan's user agreement:
In reply to:
[Adam] On the issue of attachments, I would discourage people from placing questionable material on the TW server seeing we don't know the rules of Evan's contract/agreement. Of course what constitutes porn (or art, etc) is not a science and has therefore been left to the opinion of individual moderators. When the mods were appointed, we were cracking down on a specific form of pornography - most of which would have been considered a 'hardcore' classification by various internet sites so initially there wasn't going to be too many borderline decisions.
As far as I know, there have never been any complaints regarding the contents of an attachment, so perhaps graphic images in the form of attachments (such as K's penis) are okay. On the other hand, it may be safer to disallow this to ensure compliance with Evan's contract, although there will be still be a (safer) boundary in dispute between whether an image is acceptable or not. Whereas the boundary in dispute may previously have been between 'hardcore' and 'softcore', the same ambiguity lies between 'softcore' and 'topless', or 'almost topless', etc. In an additional complication, I'm not sure that a Mod deleting a post deletes the accompanying attachment. Sure, you won't be able to access it via the post, but is it not still stored on the server?
One of the problem's with Adam's original clarification was that even his 'correct method', with a clearly labelled url, had resulted in the deletion of certain posts. I suppose if we can all agree (including EJ) that the url method is acceptable, that would be a start.
Rather than words comes the thought of high windows