NEW RULES

[BackFromUSA]

After the community consultation period via posts and PMs, the new rules have been posted.

They apply from July 1.

Until then the old rules (now resting in the admin forum) still apply.

Once I get a few moments, I shall prepare a brief to update our pphBB software to allow the requested items in the feedback thread.

Simon

[The Fireman]

everyone knows what happens to rules.

[Enrico_Misso]

For rule breaches, will character references be permitted?

[WellardSaint]

For rule breaches, will character references be permitted?

Malcolm Turnbull? Tony Abbott?
How about the ghost of Harold Holt?

[kosifantutti]

For rule breaches, will character references be permitted?

Malcolm Turnbull? Tony Abbott?
How about the ghost of Harold Holt?

Plugger66 has my back.

[thejiggingsaint]

I'm sure Stinger will vouch for ME!

[dragit]

Hey Simon,

You didn't reply to me in the other thread…

What constitutes a semi porn image, inference, reference or anecdote?

Seems a little vague and extreme for something that leads to a full permanent ban without warning?

[BackFromUSA]

Answer: What footy chat requires any semi porn image, inference, reference or anecdote?

Hey Simon,

You didn't reply to me in the other thread…

What constitutes a semi porn image, inference, reference or anecdote?

Seems a little vague and extreme for something that leads to a full permanent ban without warning?

[dragit]

Answer: What footy chat requires any semi porn image, inference, reference or anecdote?

Hey Simon,

You didn't reply to me in the other thread…

What constitutes a semi porn image, inference, reference or anecdote?

Seems a little vague and extreme for something that leads to a full permanent ban without warning?

That's more of a question than an answer... the reality is that there is a lot of off topic discussion on here... if you are making a rule that permanently bans a member without warning it would want to be pretty clear and agreed upon.

The fact that you didn't answer me initially is a concern, are you making these rules to suit your own personal taste or are you asking us what we want for the forum?

I don't even know what semi porn is?

[Trev from the Bush]

A suggestion after reading this weeks match thread (to half time).

It should be compulsory for all posters to read this the day after a match. Anybody not embarrassed by some of the comments made about our players and our team should automatically give themselves a one month ban!

The drivel to half time today is, in many parts, vile and disappointing.

[BackFromUSA]

Answer: What footy chat requires any semi porn image, inference, reference or anecdote?

Hey Simon,

You didn't reply to me in the other thread…

What constitutes a semi porn image, inference, reference or anecdote?

Seems a little vague and extreme for something that leads to a full permanent ban without warning?

That's more of a question than an answer... the reality is that there is a lot of off topic discussion on here... if you are making a rule that permanently bans a member without warning it would want to be pretty clear and agreed upon.

The fact that you didn't answer me initially is a concern, are you making these rules to suit your own personal taste or are you asking us what we want for the forum?

I don't even know what semi porn is?

Semi porn = images of partial or full nudity or implying a sexual act as examples. They have no place or reason to be on this forum. If posted then the poster will be banned.

Next question?

[BackFromUSA]

So dragit I shall save you asking now it is half time.

A sexual inference, reference or anecdote relates - refers to posts that uses language that reference sexual acts. There is no reason on a footy forum that discussion should be about sex or reference sex.

We have had several recent posts that describe sexual acts and they are NOT acceptable at all.

And it is NOT my agenda. It is an open forum and we are upholding general community standards.

[dragit]

So dragit I shall save you asking now it is half time.

A sexual inference, reference or anecdote relates - refers to posts that uses language that reference sexual acts. There is no reason on a footy forum that discussion should be about sex or reference sex.

We have had several recent posts that describe sexual acts and they are NOT acceptable at all.

And it is NOT my agenda. It is an open forum and we are upholding general community standards.

Can only assume this is an over-reaction to the Carlisle / Murphy threads.

The fact that you are lumping in a discussion about something that happened on the field and someone posting full on pornographic material says a bit about your capacity for judgement.

How many of the posters in that Murphy / Carlisle thread would have been permanently banned without warning with these new rules YOU have already implemented?

I don't think that is what most posters want or would consider reasonable, once again this clearly is your agenda… because it's not up for discussion - you have decided.

You have flatly refused to allow video embedding for years and the excuse was fear of pornography, in 7 years I have never seen an image that could remotely be described as pornographic, nor did Kosi in 2 years of moderating have to remove anything of the ilk. Clearly you have an issue here that isn't supported by reality.

You start a thread seeking input on a revised set of rules, then don't even reply before implementing them… bit of a joke really.

We should get the site renamed simonsational.net - I think the domain is free

If someone crosses the line in a thread like the Murphy one, I think most people would support a warning and/or holiday, thread edit etc… but a full permanent ban is just OTT draconian moderating.

[BackFromUSA]

Dragit

I cop lots of stuff here and it is water off a ducks back.

The only one over-reacting here is you.

Here is the old rule (been the rule since May 2014)

PORNOGRAPHY AND SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL

As a forum open to all ages, pornographic, or semi-pornographic images, inferences, references and anecdotes, are not permitted. Any such postings will constitute an permanent ban without warning.

Here is the new rule:

PORNOGRAPHY AND SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL

As a forum open to all ages, pornographic, or semi-pornographic images, inferences, references and anecdotes, are not permitted. Any such postings will constitute a permanent ban without warning.

It is the SAME rule and will continue to be moderated and administrated in the same manner. It is not for MINOR incidents - it is for major incidents and if you want porn and graphic sexual references on here then you are not the majority.

To answer the other questions:

- yes there has been porn and semi porn removed from the forum
- yes there has been pornographic cartoons removed
- yes there have been graphic sexual references removed

And finally - until there is a fail proof method of phpBB LIMITING video uploads from safe sites e.g. afl.com.au and youtube, without allowing other video loads, the limitation will stay in place. This is not me being prudish. This is me being responsible! We are looking at what advancements phpBB have made in this regard along with other features.

And then I have to get the site owner to agree.

Finally you actually know nothing about me or my background or history but if you did then what you claim I am (prudish) is laughable! Will I be seeing you at the Adult Industry Awards night at Trust on Wednesday night?

Anyway - the rule has not changed and you are making a fuss about nothing.

[asiu]

i'll play

('n hopefully safely and within the bounds of community acceptability)



Humans !!!
... what a weird bunch u are.

[dragit]

Finally you actually know nothing about me or my background or history but if you did then what you claim I am (prudish) is laughable! Will I be seeing you at the Adult Industry Awards night at Trust on Wednesday night?

Anyway - the rule has not changed and you are making a fuss about nothing.

Simon are you a porn star? It's always the ones you expect the least

Mate, I asked if you could briefly outline the rules that you were changing and you replied with that rule ^ then didn't respond to my question in your feedback thread. Apologies if I have my wires crossed.

If you are talking about extreme cases then no problem, but the words semi, reference, inference and anecdote don't imply a major breach… in fact the opposite.

What is the difference between allowing images which can lead to unsavoury content and allowing video which can also be abused. They both need to be moderated, both subject to the same rules. Do you have a safe site list for images?

If someone posts a porn video, then remove it and ban the poster, rather than forcing the entire community into a 1993 ascii prison.

BTW - Youtube wouldn't be a fail safe whitelist anyway, people can easily upload anything they like and embed on a unlisted link.

Do you need more moderators?

[BackFromUSA]

Why that rule was listed is that it (amongst others) have now been put into a heading of their own for serious breaches / harsher penalties than the standard 1 week above them.

As stated - once we can find the tech solution to ensuring that we can limit to what we regard as safe video content, AFL, youtube etc then we shall allow that - as long as the site owner agrees.

I am very comfortable with youtube and what it allows or not - as I have my own youtube channel - actual porn does not last long there and most of it is posted in USA or UK peak times (nights for us) and would be up for minutes before being reported. Yes it could be edited into other content e.g. Riewoldt takes a great mark video (starts and finishes with Roo taking a great mark but has graphic porn between) but this seems a pretty remote chance don't you think.

As for the images being allowed - yes we allowed them 3 years ago and yes we have had to remove images and yes we have banned the posters (others who posted semi naked images - we have severely warned rather than banned) and because there is no way that this forum can be monitored 24/7/365, there have been occasions where the porn images were up for hours AND may I say did I cop a serve of abuse from forum members because we did not get them down quickly enough for their liking.

There is no perfect answer.

p.s. definitely not a porn star

[The Fireman]

i'll play

('n hopefully safely and within the bounds of community acceptability)



Humans !!!
... what a weird bunch u are.

lol...this is SS

[asiu]

very SS !!



indeedy weedy

[cowboy18]

I just assumed this thread would be about how the "deliberate trolling" rule had been renamed the "insufficient intent to post on topic" rule.

[asiu]

p.s. definitely not a porn star

Pimp ?



(as in , pimping pornstars)

Elle 'n her ilk are softporn.