SGW - Was it worth it?

[_Kishkumen]

I tend to agree with Stak about turning off the ability to link to images. It is not that I think the board would fold over night, but 1) a lot of the key people on this board love using pictures; 2) most images linked here are harmless; 3) a picture really is worth a thousand words sometimes.

I think you underestimate the benefit of linking images.

[Tator]

I thought it was already against the rules to link to pictures or other information outside this board that could reveal real-life identities of posters.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I tend to agree with Stak about turning off the ability to link to images. It is not that I think the board would fold over night, but 1) a lot of the key people on this board love using pictures; 2) most images linked here are harmless; 3) a picture really is worth a thousand words sometimes.

I think you underestimate the benefit of linking images.

As as has been pointed out previously, it's impossible to discuss Book of Abraham issues without pictures. If there are no pictures then there is no Book of Abraham discussion, and that seems like a real loss.

[_harmony]

I tend to agree with Stak about turning off the ability to link to images. It is not that I think the board would fold over night, but 1) a lot of the key people on this board love using pictures; 2) most images linked here are harmless; 3) a picture really is worth a thousand words sometimes.

I think you underestimate the benefit of linking images.

Well, you just made the point that 15,000 posts were full of useless words. Thanks. It's nice to know words are so undervalued here.

[_MrStakhanovite]

You might as well close up shop at that point. Messageboards thrive off gifs/jpgs, and it still would not prohibit false DMCAs from being dropped.

Oh, that's just hyperbole, stak.

The bolded part is a fact. Banning images wouldn't solve the problem, since the img code is basically a hotlink, the more consistent response would be to ban all links that leave the forum. Why disable only one form of linking and continue to allow image hosting in the form of avatars?

People? faster? Much? Good grief. We aren't bleeding posters, stak, at least no faster than we ever were. I don't need pictures to keep me here.

Hey, try it out. Become one of the few (and probably only) Mormon forum that doesn't allow any type of images posted. See if it works out.

[_Morley]

I tend to agree with Stak about turning off the ability to link to images. It is not that I think the board would fold over night, but 1) a lot of the key people on this board love using pictures; 2) most images linked here are harmless; 3) a picture really is worth a thousand words sometimes.

I think you underestimate the benefit of linking images.

Well, you just made the point that 15,000 posts were full of useless words. Thanks. It's nice to know words are so undervalued here.

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

[_MrStakhanovite]

I thought it was already against the rules to link to pictures or other information outside this board that could reveal real-life identities of posters.

A policy that SWG didn't follow really, he complained to the host first. There was universal agreement that there wasn't a need to post pictures of his family. He didn't care about our rules.

[_harmony]

The bolded part is a fact. Banning images wouldn't solve the problem, since the img code is basically a hotlink, the more consistent response would be to ban all links that leave the forum. Why disable only one form of linking and continue to allow image hosting in the form of avatars?

You gonna pay the lawyers, Stak?

People? faster? Much? Good grief. We aren't bleeding posters, stak, at least no faster than we ever were. I don't need pictures to keep me here.

Hey, try it out. Become one of the few (and probably only) Mormon forum that doesn't allow any type of images posted. See if it works out.

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.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, you just made the point that 15,000 posts were full of useless words. Thanks. It's nice to know words are so undervalued here.

I did no such thing.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

It seems to me that the only person who was in danger of needing an attorney was the tool who complained to the host: SGW.