Sooo...is the huge red warning at the top of the word association thread really meant for the word association thread? Is seems more like a Dear * issue. The warning takes up my entire screen so if it isn't really intended for the word association thread, I'd love for it to disappear. If it is in the right place...nevermind :praying:

Announcements cannot be done for single threads, they can only be done for forums. So, it belongs..

Question - I know (and support) about not posting pics that depict nudity, but are we allowed to post links to pics that include nudity? This came up from the Lusting Lingerie thread. Thanks!

hey there! i'm curious -- why can't I view a new member's profile, yet he or she can view mine?

:)

Because they haven't been approved yet. Once approved you can than see their profile (this is to allow us to verify their profile is legit and not some spammer or worse)

I've asked Medusa to comment on this. My initial gut says to, at least, put a note that the link may be NSFW due to suggested nudity or actual nudity.

and they can see ours (the collective out-of-newbie-status ours) whilst they are in this verification period?

p.s. thank you for the super prompt reply, linus!

Apparently. I think I'll be removing that ability right now.

Here is one I've been wondering about for a while…

I really like the fact that we can control how we interact with members via ignore, visitor page, and pm's.

What I can't figure out is why they work differently

If I don't want to see the posts of jane doe, I just put her on ignore, fabulous! :)

If I don't want to have jane doe leave a visitor or private message I have to basically block (ignore) all members except those I have added to a special list, less fabulous. :(

Is there some way to have it all work like the ignore feature?

Thinking it would be nice to have the very short list of annoyances vs. the very, very, long list of nice, or potentially nice folks.

We'll have to look into a mod to change the order or see if newer versions have it. Basically, it's the way the programmers coded the bits and it's likely that the two were done independently of each other.

Thanks for checking!

Question:

I can have John Smith on ignore and I don't have to see John Smith's posts but John Smith can regularly "visit" my visitor page and be listed as one of the 10 (daily) most recent visitors to my page.

Nothing can be done about that, I am assuming?

Thanks.

In these instances it is best to PM one of the mods and let us know if you are having issues with a specific member and why. We can then look at the situation, see if your concern sounds warranted, and try to find a way to help. For example, take a hypothetical:

A and B broke up. A and B are both complaining about each other. "A visits my page all the time." "B writes about me all the time" (etc. etc.) On a case by case basis, we might instruct (not a choice) both A and B to place each other on ignore, not even indirectly write about one another, and not visit one another's pages or make contact on the site in any way. If A or B violates this, then there are consequences.

The important thing to remember is that if you bring an issue to us, it becomes our decision what to do with it and more often than not this involves both members in conflict having the same rules imposed upon them with the same consequences imposed if either breaks the rules. So it's important to first consider whether it feels serious enough to you to bring to our attention.

Exactly!

While no nudity can be posted anywhere on the site, I don't mind links to nudity as long as they contain a warning!

can i firstly say...
 

I am having no problems with anything but I do have a question. I have noticed the revised notice about TOS at the top of the fluff threads and the new statement:

"Also, when posting pictures please be sure that they are from reputable websites (e.g., instagram, photobucket, flickr, tinypic, imageshack, etc.). Avoid posting pictures from sites like Gagful and others"

Makes sense, we all need to protect the site. Here is my conundrum; when posting personal pics they come from either my computer or photobucket, easy enough. However, sometimes when I am looking for an illustrative or fun image I will go out into google images. When I find what I am looking for and go to copy the image address, I notice the size is too large to be used as is. What I do then is to go to the 'more sizes' link provided by google which then brings up a page of the same images in different sizes. (In fact I recommended this in the 'members helping members' thread to help with the huge images issue) Now, from there, I copy the image address of the size I want. I am not necessarily familiar with whatever site name it is coming from, and they are frequently in a foreign language. E.g. a place like "gagful" would not set off an alarm with me as I have no idea what it is, (still don't), is there some way recommended to avoid the potential inadvertent error?

Given that I do not post particularly edgy pictures this may never be an issue for me, but I am curious.

Your browser, Firefox especially, will likely give you a warning about "questionable sites". It looks something like below:

http://www.hmtweb.com/images/attack-site-firefox.jpg

Now the challenge is when you've disabled this feature (I have and I try to make sure that photos I post are from sites I know of and regularly visit without issue).

I have a similar feature enabled in my Safari browser to block fraudulent sites. The thing I am thinking of is when I do not go to the site at all. In google image searches specifically, when I mouse over the image I can see the name in the link, but never actually go there. I just 'copy image address' and paste it into the IMG field within the insert image function here.

Since I have never been to the site of origin and frequently have never heard of it....? I am thinking that I am not the only one that will search for things we just want a picture of without going to every site. I hope this makes sense.

question about ignoring threads - is there any way to make it so that threads you ignore don't show up in the "recent discussions" section of the front page? that tempts me to go read them. i like to just pretend they don't exist. :|