|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
The FHM issue, from the top. | by Illiad | 2003-07-11 16:14:41 |
| I agree with that, but there's an issue that needs |
by Stavros |
2003-07-11 17:16:34 |
clarification.
Neither the FHM ads, nor what I have seen on the site, are pornographic at all, and I for one don't have any objections to the ad campaign.
But what I feel needs clarification, is why, when people post links to FHM, even including UF's click-through code, they get modded. This has happened at least once in the past (I know that today's post didn't get modded - that's not the post I'm talking about). Now, I understand that the person who posted the link to FHM with the click-through code when the ad campaign was first introduced was probably just testing the moderators, but I think we need some sort of idea on the board's policy on this issue - is the whole of the FHM site considered non-FYOS safe (which is unlikely, given the ad campaign) even if the click-through code is included? Or, if someone wishes to link to a page on the FHM site which in itself contains no FYOS-unsafe material, are they within the board's rules if they do so, so long as the click-through code is included? Or, are there no such strict policies about individual sites, i.e. it's decided in a less black-and-white way, in which every potential moderation is decided upon its own merits? That last one seems the most logical - if we have too many set rules ("site x is acceptable, but not site y if it contains links to site z, site w is acceptable only on Thursdays on a full moon, etc") it just gets confusing, and it would be a lot easier for the moderator to play the "benevolent dictator" and just make the decision based on their interpretation of the rules. So is that what happened months ago when the post containing the link I've talked about was moderated? Or is it a set board policy not to link to the FHM site?
I will say that does seem a little silly that giving a link to the exact same URL as an ad banner only six inches above appears to be considered against the board's rules. I wouldn't, however, go as far as to say it's hypocritical, since it is Illiad who decides what ad banners are acceptable, and for the most part it's the non-Illiad mods who decide what posts are acceptable.
Now, re-reading this post, I realise that it started out as me asking a question, then developed to some extent into me answering my own question, then into me saying that the mods should be benevolent dictators. Ah well, even though it's late and I'm probably talking rubbish, I think my post makes some interesting points anyway. Nobody's obliged to take any notice of it, so I'm going to submit it. :-) |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Silly or not, that's how it is. | by subbywan | 2003-07-11 17:20:15 |
|
Good question... | by Illiad | 2003-07-11 17:24:48 |
|
Yes, I see your point there. | by Stavros | 2003-07-11 17:45:39 |
|
Hmm...good point... | by DeadEyez | 2003-07-11 18:22:21 |
|
Yes, like going back 16 days... | by Naruki | 2003-07-11 18:39:05 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
