[ 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

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.