Could we have one and apply it to the image currently at p.b.i.?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:40:57 -0500, Greg M. Johnson wrote:

> Could we have one and apply it to the image currently at p.b.i.?

I think there should be a policy. My take on it would be as follows:


Okay:
Tasteful nudes that aren't the focus of the image (A statue, say)

Not Okay:
Anything involving, erm, acts...
Anything where the main intent is of a pornographic nature.

Post a reply to this message

In article <4068deb3$1@news.povray.org> , "Greg M. Johnson" 
<gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> Could we have one and apply it to the image currently at p.b.i.?

The imminent problem is more with the web view than with the newsgroups.
With the image digest it is not possible for users to elect not to view an
image based on subject line.

For this reason, I removed the image from p.b.i in the web news view.



Regarding the image content itself, I can only speak for myself at this
time:

I only took a short look at the image like I do with all images.  As I do
this via the web view I did not look at all the details of any image (and
there was no description given) but only at the artistic merit.  I could not
see any merit, so I just moved on looking at other images.  Personally I
think it is very bad judgment to post this image (as outlined in the AUP),
and a link would be much more appropriate.

However, given this is not the first time the poster has been bending the
AUP to its limits, I am not sure to explicitly prohibit this particular post
will be enough.  It is neither in the interest of the POV-Team, the TAG
members or any regular visitor of these newsgroups that we turn the AUP into
a loophole-free legal document.  And the POV-Team has better things to do
than to repeatedly tweak our server because one person cannot use good
judgement when posting.  How to deal with this will ultimately have to be
decided by the server owner, I am afraid


    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

In article <406930c4$1@news.povray.org>, tho### [at] trfde says...
> In article <4068deb3$1@news.povray.org> , "Greg M. Johnson" 
> <gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> 
> > Could we have one and apply it to the image currently at p.b.i.?
> 
> The imminent problem is more with the web view than with the newsgroups.
> With the image digest it is not possible for users to elect not to view an
> image based on subject line.
> 
> For this reason, I removed the image from p.b.i in the web news view.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the image content itself, I can only speak for myself at this
> time:
> 
> I only took a short look at the image like I do with all images.  As I do
> this via the web view I did not look at all the details of any image (and
> there was no description given) but only at the artistic merit.  I could not
> see any merit, so I just moved on looking at other images.  Personally I
> think it is very bad judgment to post this image (as outlined in the AUP),
> and a link would be much more appropriate.
> 
> However, given this is not the first time the poster has been bending the
> AUP to its limits, I am not sure to explicitly prohibit this particular post
> will be enough.  It is neither in the interest of the POV-Team, the TAG
> members or any regular visitor of these newsgroups that we turn the AUP into
> a loophole-free legal document.  And the POV-Team has better things to do
> than to repeatedly tweak our server because one person cannot use good
> judgement when posting.  How to deal with this will ultimately have to be
> decided by the server owner, I am afraid
> 
> 
Yes. It would have been a much better idea to post questionable stuff to 
some place like Renderotica, which caters to such content. You also need 
to register to get in, so unless you where a member prior to the addition 
of registrations, you probably need to prove you are legal to view them. 
Such cannot be done through a news group. Some common sense should be 
applied (as laughable as that phrase often is).

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message