[ SECRET POST #219 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #219 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 103 secrets from Secret Submission Post #032.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 ] broken links, 0 not!secrets, 0 not!fandom.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Monday, August 12th, 2007.
Current Secret Submission Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

7

[(Anonymous)]

Then playing the GTA games means you're a homicidal maniac that steals/will steal cars, does/will do drugs and destroys things all over. Y/Y?

Re: 7

[ambiance.livejournal.com]

oh course. duh, you didn't know that? oh, you!

Re: 7

[(Anonymous)]

BUT HEY, I HAD TO READ "MINE KAMPF" FOR SCHOOL, DOES THAT MEAN I'M A JEW KILLER NOW?

Re: 7

[bozaloshtsh.livejournal.com]

Oh JESUS.

Re: 7

[thepinkangel.livejournal.com]

...I'm sorry, I just burst into spontaneous fits of hysterical laughter because of your icon. ...I love you D:

Re: 7

[glazedmacguffin]

There's a difference between violent movies and games, which just make you learn to press buttons harder and isn't actually making you any more physically capable of perpetrating violence; and looking at children being fucked which you need no special training to do.

What's bad? Them deleting journals of people that just had a childlike style to their art without giving them the opportunity to remove the pictures they may have even forgot they posted. But I know for a fact that pedophiles actually use pictures of little boys/girls as justification in them looking at real ones.

Livejournal also isn't a public site, its privately owned by a company that can make any rules they wish. If it wants to ban child pornography (which is an added benefit to Canadian users where it's COMPLETELY illegal) then they're allowed to do so.

Re: 7

[(Anonymous)]

exactly.

all LJ has to do is clarify their TOS and policies, outlining what is and is not permissible in clear, easy to understand language, then ban away.

however, banning 'offenders' before those clarifications were made is wanky.

Re: 7

[glazedmacguffin]

That part is sad. Someone having a cutesy style should have been given some warning before they were permanently removed. They should have started out with warnings for all "pre-rule change" art that was posted, and then made a grace period of deletion before they did bannings (really, they need a suspension policy rather than all out banning).

Re: 7

[candy--chan.livejournal.com]

They won't clarify their ToS, though. Because according to California law (where they're based), if they change the ToS, it qualifies as changing a contract, which means that angry users are then entitled to get their money back for breach. And since money means everything...yeah. No change to the ToS. Which could spell potential doom for new fandomers who sign up and have no way of knowing about all the little loopholes and catches to the new "policy."

Re: 7

[glazedmacguffin]

That's really dirty. They definitely shouldn't go about banning people without definitive changes to the ToS (and I'm uninformed in California law, so that's a handy thing to know). But then again a good number of sites that I regular have had serious breaches in administration etiquette in the past few years, so for some reason I'm not all that surprised.