Mentioning the Unmentionable site

[ShatteredWings]

When were we not allowed to reference Anonymous directly [as in the /*letter(s)here*/ sites] in posting?

I mean if you're not LINKING you're not posting anything against the rules. It's kinda along the lines of "talking about porn", which is a constant discussion in p101.

[Nathaniel]

^Thank you kind sir.

[The Batman]

When were we not allowed to reference Anonymous directly [as in the /*letter(s)here*/ sites] in posting?

I mean if you're not LINKING you're not posting anything against the rules. It's kinda along the lines of "talking about porn", which is a constant discussion in p101.

There's a difference between talking about porn and talking about porn sites though.

[ShatteredWings]

There's a difference between talking about porn and talking about porn sites though.

ok. understandable.
when did the rule change though, is what im really wondering. it used to get rarealy mentioned but still mentioned a bit.

[Nathaniel]

In some circumstances, yes there is. A certain post of mine was deleted for mentioning /troll hangout/ which could easily be looked up via search engine. If someone says "does anyone here like sex stories as a form of porn," then someone can just as easily look up "sex stories" as they could look up "/troll hangout/." Nothing was linked in the post that I am mentioning specifically, and I am questioning that. I am not sure if Kyle is referring to the same thing, but he very well may be.

I may have really missed the mark there, so sorry.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

In your post you mentioned the site by name.

[Nathaniel]

Nothing was linked though. /troll hangout/ is different than http://www.imveryconfused/com/trollhangout/

If I am not allowed to say /troll hangout/, then make that clear in the TOS, because now it isn't clear.

[The Batman]

In some circumstances, yes there is. A certain post of mine was deleted for mentioning /troll hangout/ which could easily be looked up via search engine. If someone says "does anyone here like sex stories as a form of porn," then someone can just as easily look up "sex stories" as they could look up "/troll hangout/." Nothing was linked in the post that I am mentioning specifically, and I am questioning that. I am not sure if Kyle is referring to the same thing, but he very well may be.

I may have really missed the mark there, so sorry.

No there isn't. Talking about sex stories isn't telling them the name of the website you can find it.

It's always been one of those things that should have been enforced to be fair but just never really was. It's not exactly the website it's more of what's on it so it's outlined in the rules already it just isn't named specifically.

[Nathaniel]

I'm sorry for not being clear. Replace "sex stories" with any type of pornography, maybe even just the word pornography. That word isn't a link, and neither is /troll hangout/

[ShatteredWings]

We could solve this whole thing now and just add it to the rules "no mentioning of *site* EVER" adn have that be that

[Ender]

if they mention the specific site, people are going to look it up, and then that would defeat the entire purpose.

[The Batman]

I'm sorry for not being clear. Replace "sex stories" with any type of pornography, maybe even just the word pornography. That word isn't a link, and neither is /troll hangout/

Like I said before there's a difference between talking about porn and naming off a site. Doesn't matter if you link it or not just naming off a site is inappropriate. Everyone knows there's porn on the internet but if they want to find it they'll have to search for themselves and not rely vt to give them sites without linking.

[ShatteredWings]

Okay, then "no direct mention of sites where the main domain is pornography or trolling" ?

[The Batman]

Okay, then "no direct mention of sites where the main domain is pornography or trolling" ?

I see no problem with that being added but I just want to point out that the trolling isn't really the problem it's purely based on the inappropriate images on it..

[ShatteredWings]

yeah but the mention of 'trolling' makes it clear what we're talking about in paticular.
prevents future issues with this.

[Nathaniel]

Like I said before there's a difference between talking about porn and naming off a site. Doesn't matter if you link it or not just naming off a site is inappropriate. Everyone knows there's porn on the internet but if they want to find it they'll have to search for themselves and not rely vt to give them sites without linking.

I understand the issue, but I am here to point out that the current TOS (rules... whatever :P) doesn't prohibit mention of sites. I know we as members should be responsible with our posts and censor ourselves, but I didn't see a problem with simply referencing something at the time of my post, and I am requesting a TOS change to clarify for others in the future in regards to issues such as this.

[Ender]

I understand the issue, but I am here to point out that the current TOS (rules... whatever :P) doesn't prohibit mention of sites. I know we as members should be responsible with our posts and censor ourselves, but I didn't see a problem with simply referencing something at the time of my post, and I am requesting a TOS change.

So PM an admin?

[The Batman]

I understand the issue, but I am here to point out that the current TOS (rules... whatever :P) doesn't prohibit mention of sites. I know we as members should be responsible with our posts and censor ourselves, but I didn't see a problem with simply referencing something at the time of my post, and I am requesting a TOS change to clarify for others in the future in regards to issues such as this.

That's because it's usually one of those obvious rules and it should be common sense not to do it which is outlined in the FAQ These rules and guidelines are the standard for all forums. Unwritten (implied) rules still apply, as they are common sense.

[Nathaniel]

O.o I just said that I don't feel like it is common sense.

From what Kyle said in the thread directly below this, this mentioning of sites has been a problem before, so the TOS is obviously not clear to someone other than myself.
you used to be able to.. I know someone while ago asked about if anyone was a "retard"(Use your brain, please.) but used the term, he didn't get banned/infracted/thread deleted but was just asked NOT to post a link to the site.

[ShatteredWings]

That's because it's usually one of those obvious rules and it should be common sense not to do it which is outlined in the FAQ .

I hate to break it to ya, but not mentioning them is clearly NOT an "obvious rule" if so many people are confused on it.

[Ender]

I hate to break it to ya, but not mentioning them is clearly NOT an "obvious rule" if so many people are confused on it.

i count 2.
It's pretty much common sense..

[The Batman]

I hate to break it to ya, but not mentioning them is clearly NOT an "obvious rule" if so many people are confused on it.

Only like 2 or 3 people have ever mentioned it and not many others have posted about being confused on it.

[ShatteredWings]

ok then im a morron.

[Nathaniel]

Seriously, I am just saying that something being a problem more than once is not acceptable if nothing is being done about it. Would it take more than ten minutes to ban mention of questionable sites on VT? It IS an issue, because my post was deleted for a rule that is NOT there, or at least not clear enough!

EDIT FOR CLARITY: By "ban" I mean outline in the TOS

[Giles]

Seriously, I am just saying that something being a problem more than once is not acceptable if nothing is being done about it. Would it take more than ten minutes to ban mention of questionable sites on VT? It IS an issue, because my post was deleted for a rule that is NOT there, or at least not clear enough!

Well for a start it was only one post so I think you need to get over it. It doesn't seem as if you've been punished so what's the problem?

It must be fairly obvious not to mention it, otherwise there would be way more threads complaining about the 'problem'. I know not to mention it, after a little personal experience...

[Nathaniel]

It must be fairly obvious not to mention it, otherwise there would be way more threads complaining about the 'problem'. I know not to mention it, after a little personal experience...

"Experience" is not what our problem is here, because the rule (or lack of rule) isn't clear to Kyle, who has been a member since 2007, and has nearly 10,000 posts.

[The Batman]

Okay, then "no direct mention of sites where the main domain is pornography or trolling" ?
I see no problem with that being added but I just want to point out that the trolling isn't really the problem it's purely based on the inappropriate images on it..

Incase you didn't see this...

[Nathaniel]

It might be best to lock this thread to continue argument on something that has apparently already been decided.

[Giles]

It's already been decided because there's no need for change.

[Nathaniel]

It's already been decided because there's no need for change.

No! YOU decided that there is no need for change! Read MoJo JoJo's last post pointing out that he sees nothing wrong with having it added to the TOS.

[The Batman]

Op requested :locked: