mtntrekker wrote: I really don't have much interest in Pinecam but I do read the thread here because I get such a kick out of the craziness that goes on with the mods and how much people on 285bound like to comment on them.
As for dragging info over from individual nics, isn't that kind of like dragging a link in from some blog who has an opinion about something and having others comment? It is out there for the reading and commenting.
I think if there was a major concern about the relationship with Pinecam that maybe there wouldn't, shouldn't be a thread about Pinecam to begin with? But people will make comments and be offended by what anyone says anywhere and it seems they have been offered the opportunity to discuss it freely here. Put it in the ring and let it be, including their nics, imo.
I've given this (talking about the other site) much thought. Though it may be desirable to not talk about them (and I've expressed my opinion too in that regard) I've come to realize that the service this forum offers is a chance for community members to heal by venting their frustrations and at the same time offering insights for the rest of the community. As Joe pointed out, self control is really what is needed. But, we do need to give those who have suffered a chance to unload their burden and empathize with them.
As in regards to pulling specific posts, I suppose a link would be sufficient and more desirable. I'm with CB on this with regard to discussion becoming gossip. Again, common sense should reign. If you have a positive post the same rules may not apply, but this gets into a subjective assessment of what is "positive". An alternative would be to paraphrase what was said and give credit to another site or individual on another site without giving nic or name. Those are my thoughts for consideration.
towermonkey wrote: SC, keep your site legal even if some whine about it. <Becky> There are a lot of people out there who will jump on any illegality and trump up a lawsuit just to cause problems for you or get some sort of revenge.
sharpening claws as we speak.....LOL only kidding.
I agree with much of what has been posted here. I think the policy is a good one. I just think it was misapplied in the situation that brought all of this to a discussion.
The great thing about this site is that it allows for discussion. If I am over-ruled by a majority....so be it. I think an awful lot of SC for bringing this to the table and to allow for community input. She does have the final say. I am not always right...(gasp)
It was merely my opinion that the policy had been stretched to a bit of an extreme and I just wanted to review it to see if we could make it better.
285bound has shown us the best parts of our community.
We are allowed to disagree and in the ring....you can even call me an butthead if you like. Heck....people do it all the time.
I just love that we can talk about this and offer educated, reasoned input. That is awesome....Thx 285bound.
CinnamonGirl wrote: How would you like it if someone posted that you have a STD? Whether it was true or not it could affect your standing in your community or job and is probably not something you would want pasted all over the internet. True or not. Actually worse if it is true. Personal information is sacred to me.
I think there are two different issues. Posting something like you suggest (an STD) without a link is different than quoting the person that admits to an STD on another site. The former violates privacy, while the latter does not.
Just wanted to point that out without muckin up the grudge enhancement going on in the other thread.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
CinnamonGirl wrote: How would you like it if someone posted that you have a STD? Whether it was true or not it could affect your standing in your community or job and is probably not something you would want pasted all over the internet. True or not. Actually worse if it is true. Personal information is sacred to me.
I think there are two different issues. Posting something like you suggest (an STD) without a link is different than quoting the person that admits to an STD on another site. The former violates privacy, while the latter does not.
Just wanted to point that out without muckin up the grudge enhancement going on in the other thread.
Well here comes more issues that the site has to keep in mind. It is alot of information that we do alot of research on. It is not a simple matter believe me. Just keep that in mind. And yes the we don't allow hearsay without a publication as well. Good point.
One sure would want to be careful with any slander issues that's fur sure. I think that also goes to just being rude when someone copies something like that. It's good to have rules and no need to open a hornet's nest if that's what things are looking like. You guys already have a tough enough job. Why make it tougher just so we can say a nic. Usually when someone is relating a negative experience that happened to them it is enough for me to know from what site they are speaking of and I really don't need or want to know the who.
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
If this has been a policy (no naming nics) where is the policy stated, I don't see it in the TOS ?
Is it just for nics from other forums or here too?
Is initializing still allowed. (i.e. refer to SC but not Science Chic)?
Can I refer to someone in a thread like VL, if he isn't in posting in that thread? (I think I have already done that)?
Can I post a quote from an old thread here from someone's nic, in a new thread here they are not currently writing in? (Note that the quote automatically enters their nic)
I'm still not clear on this, not a big issue to me, just want to know the policy and details.
This is what I mean by rules, once you make them it gets confusing spelling out details.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
