These are the forums for the GateWa.rs family of text-based space-centred PBBGs
https://talk.gatewa.rs/
It wasn't exactly a discussion tho. A sick joke rather, but nonetheless it was inappropriate as per my last post.Haz wrote:[BoT] Jack wrote: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.
stuff of legends wrote:[BoT] Jack wrote:[spoiler][/spoiler]Nostra wrote:Zeratul wrote: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.
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.
Haz wrote:[BoT] Jack wrote: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.
That's because there is no work in the Oms office.[BoT] Jack wrote:@Clarkey: Ifrit claimed that it did.
Clarkey wrote:That's because there is no work in the Oms office.[BoT] Jack wrote:@Clarkey: Ifrit claimed that it did.
[BoT] Jack wrote:That was hardly explicit
Legal Dictionary wrote: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
Iƒrit wrote:[BoT] Jack wrote:That was hardly explicitLegal Dictionary wrote: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 wrote:Iƒrit wrote:[BoT] Jack wrote:That was hardly explicitLegal Dictionary wrote: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?
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.Iƒrit wrote:Clarkey wrote:Iƒrit wrote:[BoT] Jack wrote:That was hardly explicitLegal Dictionary wrote: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 wrote: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.Iƒrit wrote:Clarkey wrote:Iƒrit wrote:[BoT] Jack wrote:That was hardly explicitLegal Dictionary wrote: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??
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.
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).[BoT] Jack wrote:The forums are hosted in Canada.
Clarkey wrote: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).[BoT] Jack wrote:The forums are hosted in Canada.
no one said anything about it?