appropriateness

[Iƒrit]

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).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-58

but again, I was using it as a reference for defining sexually explicit.

[deni]

I fail to see how this applies even remotely to the nature of Juliette's post

[noone]

[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.

Excuse me ?? I am not allowed to care for the comon intrest of kids on forums ?
Cos that is exactly what you are saying. Ohw wait, you was laughing about "uncle jack" you probably dont care at all about other peoples kids.

[spoiler]

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.

[/spoiler]
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.

In my personal opinion, yes, they were invalid to a degree, and I expressed it, whats your point ?

[Clarkey]

I fail to see how this applies even remotely to the nature of Juliette's post

It doesn't, but then people need the bottom of the barrel in order to scrape it.

[Psyko]

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).

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.

[Iƒrit]

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).

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.

Well regardless it gives a good understanding that what was said is under the definition of sexually explicit, and I assume its not just the US, probably most decently civilized countries around the world.

[Enter|Shikari]

The be all and end all of this is that Jo was having a laugh with a guy she knows, nothing more nothing less.
Knowing Jo, I know she wouldn't mean it any harmful or disrespectful way.
Although it was a touchy subject in RL terms, it was merely a joke between friends.
Can this please be locked because it's gotten out of hand and will only continue as a pointless argument.

[Dexter Morgan™]

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'

Nostra's example FTW.

I have 2 daughters, and we know julliette was kidding, but do that kids parents know her? Do the parents of the probably 50% of server that is under 18 on here....

If I saw my daughter being talked to inappropriately by a man I would personally hunt him down and put him in my RL kill room.

[Empy]

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]

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?

[Empy]

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?

It broke no rules.

[deni]

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.

[Iƒrit]

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.

umm no its sexually suggestive/explicit. Unless I'm blind, the rules forbid that. But i guess it just is another case of huge inconsistencies amongst the administration. Much like the picture I had to report 11 times before a mod did something about it, while lord Rahls sig was removed/banned for being just that.

That or its perfectly fine to post in these forums about having sex with minors....

[Empy]

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.

[Iƒrit]

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.

so the second? that being, its okay to post about having sex with minors on these forums?