These are the forums for the GateWa.rs family of text-based space-centred PBBGs
https://talk.gatewa.rs/
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.
[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.
[BoT] Jack wrote: [spoiler][/spoiler]Nostra wrote:Zeratul wrote:in circumstances where one of the parties is in any way offended, then this would indeed be very wrong. But should neither party be offended, then it is basically not wrong.
...
Someone getting offended on another's behalf when he/she/it is not offended him-/her-/itself, is more wrong we'd say.
Mind you, these are personal opinions of ours, not official admin decrees.
.....
Those are your personal opinions too zera
You obviously dont have kids.
So because Z does not have childern his opinion is instantly invalidated or is it because he does not agree with you? Maybe it is both? Because that is exactly what you just said.
It doesn't, but then people need the bottom of the barrel in order to scrape it.deni wrote:I fail to see how this applies even remotely to the nature of Juliette's post
Iƒrit wrote: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.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-58
but again, I was using it as a reference for defining sexually explicit.
Psyko wrote:Iƒrit wrote: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.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-58
but again, I was using it as a reference for defining sexually explicit.
You were using a link to a law about Sexual Exploitation of Children to define sexually explicit. In American law terms, that means that you were using one law to try to make a blanket statement about the definition of a term throughout all of the US Legal System. The definitions of the terms change with each law. That's why the first subsection of each law contains the definitions that are to be applied. Otherwise, they wouldn't spell out the definitions in every freaking Section. (Which pissed me off the most when I was studying law.)
The truth is that one person's idea of which comments on this forum qualify as sexually explicit or obscene is not the same as every other person on the forum. A post may be reported, and should be if someone believes it violates board rules, but that doesn't mean a warning will automatically be issued each time someone on a vast forum finds a post inappropriate.
Nostra wrote:Tetrismonkey wrote:What a lucky bastard. Getting hit on by a 24 year old when only being 14....
Yeah, perhaps you have a young daughter, who gets adressed by a 24 old guy
See if you still find it humurous.
edit: I wonder if you would deem your daughter 'lucky'
E.M.P. wrote:This is clearly a mountain made out of a molehill.
It was a joke. Any reaction other than seeing it as a harmless joke is an overreaction. It broke no rules.
If it's a concern about Andy being a "child" then it's of no concern to anyone but his parents. I don't have kids but I certainly would not have a problem with what Juliette said (all parents can feel free to condescend towards me on that opinion).
I moved the post back, because there is nothing wrong with it. Also, for the record femme reported it first, and I closed it without action. I dunno who reported it again, but there should be a function to not allow a post to be reported again (assuming it was) but that's not relevant really...
Iƒrit wrote:E.M.P. wrote:This is clearly a mountain made out of a molehill.
It was a joke. Any reaction other than seeing it as a harmless joke is an overreaction. It broke no rules.
If it's a concern about Andy being a "child" then it's of no concern to anyone but his parents. I don't have kids but I certainly would not have a problem with what Juliette said (all parents can feel free to condescend towards me on that opinion).
I moved the post back, because there is nothing wrong with it. Also, for the record femme reported it first, and I closed it without action. I dunno who reported it again, but there should be a function to not allow a post to be reported again (assuming it was) but that's not relevant really...
so long as I am joking I can break forum rules?
E.M.P. wrote:It broke no rules.
deni wrote:Ifrit, please do not twist Empy's words.
No forum rules were broken, yet the comment was inapropriate to outsiders and a joke between friends to insiders.
E.M.P. wrote:It certainly wasn't explicit, and there is no real against sexual suggestiveness. Only rules about Profanity, Abuse, and Pornography. Of which this was none.
