Adam007 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Could we have a thread (discussion included so it's not considered advertising) linking to a specialized outside forum where we post pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1216 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 That would be the exact same if the thread were allowed as having a picture forum here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 That would be the exact same if the thread were allowed as having a picture forum here. Except...it's not here. And it's not under TIF's jurisdiction. It's in another house with another alarm system TIF isn't responsible for. The key just happens to be in this house, but it's entirely the user's responsibility whether or not to use the metaphorical key (Our side of the argument can use analogies too :P ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1216 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Except allowing the thread is a tacit acceptance/encouragement of the other forum for pictures by Tip.it, which is the exact same. The disclaimer of "post at your own risk" would obviously be applied to a picture thread if it were on TiF. There's no difference between the two except the URLs being different. This debate is and has been over for a while. You can put the site together on your own time and advertise it to people on your friends list. What exactly makes you so desperate to have Tip.it authorize it? If they don't want a picture forum here, they certainly won't advertise for one somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Except allowing the thread is a tacit acceptance/encouragement of the other forum for pictures by Tip.it, which is the exact same. The disclaimer of "post at your own risk" would obviously be applied to a picture thread if it were on TiF. There's no difference between the two except the URLs being different. Yeah, but the issue the admins have is that they don't want to be responsible for bad things happening. In this way it's completely out of their hands and people at the same time are satisfied. This debate is and has been over for a while. You can put the site together on your own time and advertise it to people on your friends list. What exactly makes you so desperate to have Tip.it authorize it? If they don't want a picture forum here, they certainly won't advertise for one somewhere else. There's no need to put all that effort into it - that'd be like a deloriagod inc type forum and I personally don't see that type of a project to be worth all of that effort trying to find people to sign up rather than having one thread here. Honestly I'm debating this because of the principle behind it now. I just don't agree with the basic premise behind the rule that one bad exception should spoil it for the rest. I believe in personal accountability/responsibility and don't think the forum administers should take such a parental role. There's a difference between maintaining safety and overprotection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1216 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Except allowing a link to that forum even when you say "we're not responsible if you click this link" only prevents liability on their part from a legal standpoint, not an ethical one. There's not much point to a debate on the principle of their rule here. You're saying that they're overprotective, and they're saying "better safe than sorry." There isn't any negative effect on Tip.it deciding not to allow a thread for pictures because of the number of alternatives you can use. The only argument is one of convenience for yourself and more work for them. If I were them I'd make the exact same decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 There's not much point to a debate on the principle of their rule here. You're saying that they're overprotective, and they're saying "better safe than sorry." Is the saying "better safe than sorry" applicable in general for all situations? After you answer I'll expand on my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1216 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 No. But according to admins, there have been EXTREMELY severe consequences from allowing real life pictures. Again, your argument is one of convenience. Considering the implications of what Ard and the Sith have said, burdening those who want pictures to avoid what happened is a fair trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 No. But according to admins, there have been EXTREMELY severe consequences from allowing real life pictures. Again, your argument is one of convenience. Considering the implications of what Ard and the Sith have said, burdening those who want pictures to avoid what happened is a fair trade. Alright, but my point would have been and is, even for this situation, that even if a bad thing happens .01% of the time it's not worth spoiling it for the rest for the sake of being safe rather than sorry. But if we're going under the assumption that a bad thing will happen, based off history, I guess there's no way to go through with this. I still would like the idea of allowing a thread linking to an outside source addressed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1216 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 The premise of you saying "spoiling" is that not allowing a picture thread somehow kills any picture sharing. It's only an argument of making things more convenient, the work load should be on us instead of the admins. Considering what they have implied about what happened the last time pictures were put up, continuing to argue in favor of even a thread that links to another site (which is still the same thing) is trivializing what happened. Seriously, people apparently got stalked. How much are you willing to risk just so its EASIER to share pictures? As for the "make a thread linking to another site", see above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errdoth Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 You two are still debating this? Anyways, I haven't really decided where I stand in this debate. I would like to be able to see pictures of people, but why would anyone (not naming anybody in particular) want to see other people that bad. Is it really that important? You can always PM them if you are so desparate to see what they look like. The admins have their reasons, and I don't really think I have the qualifications to question them. They obviously know what they're doing. Last.fm Signature Overlays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 The premise of you saying "spoiling" is that not allowing a picture thread somehow kills any picture sharing. It's only an argument of making things more convenient, the work load should be on us instead of the admins. By us making a site and having it be allowed on the forum as a thread, I don't understand how you're saying that's giving the admins a workload of any sorts. It's in our hands, we just need the word to get out by allowing a thread on it. Considering what they have implied about what happened the last time pictures were put up, continuing to argue in favor of even a thread that links to another site (which is still the same thing) is trivializing what happened. Seriously, people apparently got stalked. How much are you willing to risk just so its EASIER to share pictures? I personally don't feel a risk. I haven't made any enemies on this forum. Under my judgment I wouldn't have a problem posting my picture because I value self accountability. People should be able to tell whether or not there would be an issue. If you've made any enemies on the forum, the obvious thing to do would be to not post your picture. Again, people have and should exercise their own judgment. And in this sense, I think the blanket rule covers a lot of people unnecessarily. You two are still debating this? Anyways, I haven't really decided where I stand in this debate. I would like to be able to see pictures of people, but why would anyone (not naming anybody in particular) want to see other people that bad. Is it really that important? You can always PM them if you are so desparate to see what they look like. The admins have their reasons, and I don't really think I have the qualifications to question them. They obviously know what they're doing. It's not an issue of wanting to see people badly. It's an issue of debate really. I think it would be fun to see who I've been talking with for all these years obviously, but for the most part I'm debating this out of disagreeing principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokemama Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 *** Disclaimer: the opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent Tip.It *** It's only an argument of making things more convenient, the work load should be on us instead of the admins. By us making a site and having it be allowed on the forum as a thread, I don't understand how you're saying that's giving the admins a workload of any sorts. It's in our hands, we just need the word to get out by allowing a thread on it. It's not an issue of wanting to see people badly. It's an issue of debate really. I think it would be fun to see who I've been talking with for all these years obviously, but for the most part I'm debating this out of disagreeing principle. Perhaps you are wasting a lot of people's time by trying to continue this argument after it's over. The admins have already officially responded, and stated that their decision is final. Continuing at this point just seems like y'all are hoping to needle the admins into changing their minds, like you would your parents. Go set up a debate in the debate forum and get each other riled up. This forum is to discuss issues with the forum admins. This issue has been discussed and addressed. The decision has been made. Move on, please. *** Disclaimer: the opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent Tip.It *** it's a lot easier to get over yourself when you look at intelligence the same way you look at beauty, or height, or eye color: being smart is easy, but being good is hard ... being smart is handed to you, being good is handed to *nobody*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_tallest1 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 After all the information given by The_Sith on this matter and the various comments from Admins there isn't anything else to be said on this subject. Ideally this topic would not need to be locked but despite changing the rules and then being more explicit in the answer, people are not asking questions concerning how to work in accordance with the rule but rather continually debating it when the decision has been reached. In reply to the question raised in the last page or two: No, the sites currently censored will not be removed from the censor. Also, a usergroup set up for the purpose of being able to trade pictures will not be implemented either. The_Sith more than adequately explained the reasons behind the usergroup and those are the same reasons the Admins came up with for not allowing it. Linking to sites is not really any different than posting the picture within tags in that it is more or less publicly posting that picture. We have given everyone ways within the rules to distribute pictures to other users. Even though it might not be the decision that everyone is most satisfied with it is the decision that we have made. Please understand we aren't out to spite the users or ruin their fun but do what we feel is in the users' and forum's best interest. 571st to 99 Fm Nov. 4 '06 - 315th to 99 Crafting Mar. 3 '07 - 3410th to 99 Fishing Sept. 18 '0726378th to 99 Cooking Oct. 16 '07 -.- 99 Thieving Dec. 29 '07 - 1343rd to 99 Farming June 5 '081807th to 99 Agility Nov. 8 '08 - 3094th to 99 Smithing Feb. 14 '092012 total - 91 combat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts