SGW - Was it worth it?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _harmony »

Morley wrote:I don't read that in what Kish (who is, himself, a wordsmith) said. Not at all.


I took it personally, Morley, because I have almost 15,000 posts, none of which contain pictures. I have no avatar. So if posts that contain no pictures are useless simply because they contain no pictures, then I guess that means my 15,000 pictureless posts are useless.

We have people here who use pictures as weapons, intended to inflict pain. And look what that's gotten us... shut down, laughed at, and Shades' butt in a legal wringer.

What is your solution? To somehow assume the posters here who so love to use pictures as weapons will somehow grow up because of this? How likely is that, do you think?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

harmony wrote:You gonna pay the lawyers, Stak? If you're only here for the pictures, what's the point? Shades' butt is on the line. I'm not willing to sacrifice his butt just so people can satisfy their need to post irresponsibly.


< insert facepalm pic here >

No one's butt is on the line.

There are more than enough people here (including me) to pitch in where needed, if our current host isn't going to be in our corner.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _harmony »

MrStakhanovite wrote:
harmony wrote:You gonna pay the lawyers, Stak? If you're only here for the pictures, what's the point? Shades' butt is on the line. I'm not willing to sacrifice his butt just so people can satisfy their need to post irresponsibly.


< insert facepalm pic here >

No one's butt is on the line.

There are more than enough people here (including me) to pitch in where needed, if our current host isn't going to be in our corner.


Going to be in our corner? Are you serious? They shut us down, in case you missed it, without so much as a warning.

What is your solution, stak? Because the threat will now always be in the background... because of the actions of a few, everyone can be silenced. And the church didn't have to do anything at all.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _Kishkumen »

harmony wrote:I took it personally, Morley, because I have almost 15,000 posts, none of which contain pictures. I have no avatar. So if posts that contain no pictures are useless simply because they contain no pictures, then I guess that means my 15,000 pictureless posts are useless.


Well, harmony, I never came close to suggesting anything of the sort. I simply said that some prolific posters enjoy using them productively or at least harmlessly, and that they can be very effective, especially, as AS pointed out, in the Book of Abraham debate.

I am sorry you got the impression that I personally do not value you as a member of the community because of my comments. I really don't see how you can construe me as saying anything of the sort. My intention was not to attack you personally or hurt your feelings.

harmony wrote:And look what that's gotten us... shut down, laughed at, and Shades' butt in a legal wringer.


    *Being shot down for a day is not the end of the world. The first thing we do is shop for a better host in a state that is less litigious.

    * Who the hell cares about being laughed at in this affair other than the little weasel who contacted the host?

    *Shades butt was never in danger of being in a legal wringer because SeattleSmutWriter's brother-in-law or whoever his lawyer is was willing to send a frivolous warning to our host.

harmony wrote:What is your solution? To somehow assume the posters here who so love to use pictures as weapons will somehow grow up because of this? How likely is that, do you think?


Maybe a no posting of family pictures of others would be a decent start. Situations like this occur because someone's feelings get really scorched. One way of guarding against this getting out of hand is managing, as minimally as possible, the degree to which that can happen. No solution is perfect, but I think no family is eminently reasonable as a standard.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _Kishkumen »

harmony wrote:They shut us down, in case you missed it, without so much as a warning.


So the board migrates to a new host. Problem solved.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Joseph
_Emeritus
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _Joseph »

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... 9/9-c.html

Consider Fair Use Before Requesting DMCA Takedown

In 2008, a district court ruled that prior to requesting a takedown notice, a copyright owner must consider the likelihood of a claim of fair use. In that case, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for a video of a child dancing to the song, “Let’s Go Crazy,” by Prince. The owner of the video claimed that since Universal didn’t consider the issue of fair use, Universal could have not had a “good faith belief” they were entitled to a takedown. Faced with this novel issue a district court agreed that the failure to consider fair use when sending a DMCA notice could give rise to a claim of failing to act in good faith. (Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008).)

**********************************************

http://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-as ... ight.htmlQ:

What is “Fair Use?”

A: Although many people have their own notions about “fair use” of an image, there is a specific statutory definition restricting this category “to purposes such as parody, criticism, comment, news reporting, education (including the distribution of multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.” A good resource on this topic can be found at Stanford University.

******************************

Frequently Asked Questions about publication

Q: Is a photo published if it is on my web site?

A: If it is in a public area of the web site, it is probably published. If it is a private area of the web site, it is probably not published.



If you have unpublished images that you want to post on your web site, you can avoid the published/unpublished issue by registering them as unpublished images before you upload them. It is also important to be aware that registering the web site is different from registering the images on the web site.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _sock puppet »

MrStakhanovite wrote:Also wanted to add, any argument against img code is also valid against avatars, I could drop a false DMCA on liz right now for the Spring Awakening avatar and get a similiar result. What SGW was wrong, and we shouldn't have to change a thing.

But it's so American now, Stak. Look how personal privacy and security measures have been imbalanced in the wake of 9/11.

In reality, SGW has used legal tools to commit an act of terrorism against MDB, its owners and host.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Ban Joseph.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _beastie »

Kishkumen wrote:
Maybe a no posting of family pictures of others would be a decent start. Situations like this occur because someone's feelings get really scorched. One way of guarding against this getting out of hand is managing, as minimally as possible, the degree to which that can happen. No solution is perfect, but I think no family is eminently reasonable as a standard.


I'm sure this is already against the rules, as I previously stated.

Do not reveal personal or "in real life" information about any poster on this site that he or she has not explicitly revealed here. This includes avoiding mention of his/her actual first or last name, even if he or she has made it available on some other website.*


The rules were violated, no doubt. SGW could have simply complained to Shades or another mod and the offending material would have been removed.

Mods can't supervise 24/7. And the offending material was only up 18 minutes. This guy just had his feelings hurt and, being emotionally volatile and immature, over-reacted in a silly way that he'll probably regret.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: SGW - Was it worth it?

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

harmony wrote:What is your solution, stak?


Point to your 15,000 posts and insist everyone's board experince must mirror your own.
Post Reply