appropriateness

[Clarkey]

It violated no rules.

Discussion of illegal activities (sexual activity with minors). Not a rule, but it is still illegal, and should not be on the forums.

It wasn't exactly a discussion tho. A sick joke rather, but nonetheless it was inappropriate as per my last post.

[deni]

The post contained sexual innuendo, but that does not make it a "discussion" of sexual activity with minors.

Let's not try to be holier than the pope, k?

[Jack]

[spoiler]

true on both counts, Nostra.

While we do not have kids, we can also understand why you speak as you did... had it been anything except that obvious jest, it would have been very wrong.

That opinion would lay in the eye of the beholder ...

The people involved may laugh ... a parent reading his kids activity may see the jest, and simply block.

Cos psyko, when a parent would see and understand its a moderator talking like that, they would simply deem the entire staff might be the same ... and block the site pre-emtpively.

Parents tend not to argue with people involved with disputable behaviour online when it comes to their childs upbringing. They simply prevent any further riscs of further involvement of their child.

I would.


And julliete, you and Andy might not be offended, parents might definatly think otherwise.
Mind you, the parents are the legal gaurdians, their childs personal opinion of a grown up women appraoching them like that, is of no concern to them. They will do what they feel is right for their child.

[/spoiler]
Then let the parents decide what its ok and what is not and stop trying to babysit someone elses kid.

Lets use your logic then and remove word censoring, let the parents decide whats ok for their children.

There is a difference between a coming of age joke and profanity. Though if you would like to start a movement to have the filter disabled then be my guest, I'll support you all the way. Or did you forget that I am a minimalist when it comes to rules?

I think there should be as few rules as possible but strictly enforced with some exceptions(spam would be one such exception).

@Clarkey: Ifrit claimed that it did.

It violated no rules.

Discussion of illegal activities (sexual activity with minors). Not a rule, but it is still illegal, and should not be on the forums.

There are countless discussions about illegal activity on the forums, yes some even involve minors. But I digress. A joke is hardly a discussion and certainly not one to be taken seriously. It is a joke, it is not a disgusting joke, it is not inappropriate. This us a joke that has been told countless times on PG-13 and even PG television and in movies.

[Clarkey]

@Clarkey: Ifrit claimed that it did.

That's because there is no work in the Oms office.

[Iƒrit]

@Clarkey: Ifrit claimed that it did.

That's because there is no work in the Oms office.

thats because far as I remember sexually suggestive/explicit material, images, writing, ect. was forbidden on these forums. Note I didn't go and look at the rules to see if I was correct, I used common sense cause it should be against forum rules.... And i know of several Sigs that got banned due to sexually suggestive/explicit in nature.

[Jack]

That was hardly explicit

[Iƒrit]

That was hardly explicit

Main Entry: las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation: l&-'si-vE-&s
Function: adjective
: reflecting or producing sexual desire or behavior esp. that is considered indecent or obscene lascivious behavior

US law for Sexually Explicit Conduct

She published something in a public forum that was lascivious.

[Clarkey]

That was hardly explicit

Main Entry: las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation: l&-'si-vE-&s
Function: adjective
: reflecting or producing sexual desire or behavior esp. that is considered indecent or obscene lascivious behavior

US law for Sexually Explicit Conduct

She published something in a public forum that was lascivious.

Just a side thought, is this server (the one the forum is one) based in US or Canada or?

[Iƒrit]

That was hardly explicit

Main Entry: las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation: l&-'si-vE-&s
Function: adjective
: reflecting or producing sexual desire or behavior esp. that is considered indecent or obscene lascivious behavior

US law for Sexually Explicit Conduct

She published something in a public forum that was lascivious.

Just a side thought, is this server (the one the forum is one) based in US or Canada or?

well the point is according to the definition of US law it is explicit material, I don't know what other countries would consider it. But surely it should be considered explicit here??

[Clarkey]

That was hardly explicit

Main Entry: las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation: l&-'si-vE-&s
Function: adjective
: reflecting or producing sexual desire or behavior esp. that is considered indecent or obscene lascivious behavior

US law for Sexually Explicit Conduct

She published something in a public forum that was lascivious.

Just a side thought, is this server (the one the forum is one) based in US or Canada or?

well the point is according to the definition of US law it is explicit material, I don't know what other countries would consider it. But surely it should be considered explicit here??

Thing with the internet is that if I posted something that was illegal in the US but on a UK hosted forum, and it not being illegal in the UK then I would not be posting something that is illegal.

However, I don't know much about US or Canadian laws, so i dunno if that has any influence over your statement Ifrit.

But back to the subject at hand, it as deni said was sexual innuendo, or as i put it a sick joke. Wrong in my eyes, but i've seen worse.

[Jack]

The forums are hosted in Canada.

[Iƒrit]

That was hardly explicit

Main Entry: las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation: l&-'si-vE-&s
Function: adjective
: reflecting or producing sexual desire or behavior esp. that is considered indecent or obscene lascivious behavior

US law definition for Sexually Explicit Conduct

She published something in a public forum that was lascivious.

Just a side thought, is this server (the one the forum is one) based in US or Canada or?

well the point is according to the definition of US law it is explicit material, I don't know what other countries would consider it. But surely it should be considered explicit here??

Thing with the internet is that if I posted something that was illegal in the US but on a UK hosted forum, and it not being illegal in the UK then I would not be posting something that is illegal.

However, I don't know much about US or Canadian laws, so i dunno if that has any influence over your statement Ifrit.

But back to the subject at hand, it as deni said was sexual innuendo, or as i put it a sick joke. Wrong in my eyes, but i've seen worse.

I used it as a reference point to show a definition of sexually explicit. All that other stuff you are mentioning I don't care... What I want to know is... Why is what was posted, not considered Sexually Explicit?

Edit - And its not even the laws, its definitions. But I'm sure if you scroll through it far enough you can pull that stuff up.

[Clarkey]

The forums are hosted in Canada.

Thought so, so how does that correspond to Ifrits post regarding US law, is it the same? Anyway, i made my point about quoting foreign laws (foreign as in foreign to the country the forum is actually hosted in).

[Jack]

The forums are hosted in Canada.

Thought so, so how does that correspond to Ifrits post regarding US law, is it the same? Anyway, i made my point about quoting foreign laws (foreign as in foreign to the country the forum is actually hosted in).

I'm not Canadian, I'm unfamiliar with Canadian law.

[RoKeT]

I can't believe this has gotten so far to be honest, if it was a non mod would it have gone this far one wonders? although I do agree it was a bit much (Mainly because she didn't say it to me and i'm jealous) i've said and done much worse, I mean who remembers me and Clarkey's sig no one said anything about it?