At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
(Excuse my vulgar language. We are all mature adults and understand the appropriate use.) So the rules say no pornography is permitted onsite. Pornography is described as a sexual act being performed, an erotica, video tape, sound recording, poetry,or anything meant to arouse the viewer in a sexual way. This is true, but it becomes more strict when it comes to physical images. Pornography on all images is not considered pornography. Some images portray two lesbians kissing, that can arouse the reader, but children are allowed to look at it because it is not pornography. Physical pornography is described as a viewing of the breast, penis, vagina, or anus. If not than it is technically not pornography. This gives users the free will too post completely naked girls, the only catch is the girls don't have detailed nipples or a detailed vaginal area. It also allows people to post images of others performing sexual acts on each other, as long as the image does not have any of the listed pornographic traits above. So as a law abiding member, I can send you this image: http://images.4chan.org/u/src/1344172087032.jpg And it wouldn't be going against any rules because no pornography is being displayed, and they have yet to engage sexually. You can also post completely nude pictures of girls full detailed and everything if the form is Lolicon. Basically Lolicon is just naked girls in general that are under 18 and animated. It technically doesn't count as pornography according to the U.S states and Britain because if it was pornography it would be CP and outlawed. Same thing with Loli-Yuri or Loli-Yaoi. This is why I suggest a rule changed that prohibits Lolicon of any kind, suggestive-sexual acts, male and female must have some sort of top and bottom cloth, and no posting images, text, or erotica that is none-sexual but can be interpreted in a sexual manner. I sent Yahoo! a similar message(he asked me too, said he'd help,) and he hat a tantrum. I told him I didn't break any rules, just like I explained too you in the above text. I sent him an image of two girls not performing in a sexual act, nude, but the breast and vagina had no detail; they were left blank. He completely lost it. It is not pornography at all. Regards, Stephen.
Callisto, they made me post it :'(
To be simple, we would ask users posting inappropriate photos to change it.
The photo's themselves aren't inappropriate by law or reason. What one person may find inappropriate another might not find inappropriate. An example would be that some people might find my photo inappropriate because the girl is in her panties, but I think the panda hat and pink jacket on her are rather cute. So in reality no 'one' person decides what is inappropriate or not because we all act according to our own senses. It would make this site a complete socialist anarchy once it starts to grow. That's why solid rules are so important. It's fine for now because of the short member list, but this site is about to gain 3x the members because school is starting back. You should expect troll accounts, flamers, spammers, flood, etc.
Just a personal view. Honestly, I'm not familiar with the US law/British law. When we have to decide if it is appropriate, I think it depends on the situation. Like this, this is an educational site. Posting a picture of a girl wearing too little can't be appropriate. Also, it's mentioned in the Code of Conduct that: Don't be offensive, inappropriate, or creepy! So avoid: Sexual innuendo, or "hitting on people". In that sense, I think we should avoid these types of things.... Perhaps other moderators or administrators will have more to add.
I agree and disagree with some parts. I'll wait for another moderator or member to respond.
I believe the vast majority of the human race tries to live by a high moral code by which proper dress and language and behaviours are largely unwritten. We are sentient beings that are capable of making moral decisions internally, and not because someone had to write down a law against it.
there are actions that are acceptable publically; and those that are accepted privately. As groups we tend to lean towards conduct that promotes unity and the good of the group. When we are in our individual settings, we tend to live by a different code of conduct, prolly due to less people to judge us.
Hi @Compassionate - when it comes to dealing with images that are inappropriate for OpenStudy, we rely on the old Supreme Court mandate - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Basically, while we don't exactly define what we consider inappropriate, as @amistre64 said quite well above, we *do* make 'moral decisions' based on our own values. Admittedly this is always going to be subjective, but we do reserve the right to make these type of decisions based on our *own* moral/ethical compass. Cheers!
I completely agree with what you're saying, and as staff members moderators and admins are allowed to punish members in any way they see fit. However, if you do not have it written down then members will start to complain about moderators abusing their powers and going against the Cod of Conduct. There is this site called Xat.com , awhile back people would post pornographic images because of a loophole in the rules like this one. The members saw it as fun, but the moderators got annoyed and started banning the members. Because it wasn't written in the rules members kept abusing their privileges and continued to do this. When they got banned they complained how it was unfair. They would make troll accounts and harass staff members because of one little mistake in the rules. I would have to admit at the time it was the funniest thing, but they fixed it now and blocked of Loli or Toon Porn. I'm not saying this to be difficult, but I can understand the point of view of that person you may ban, he'll see it as unfair and most likely make a troll account and post inapp topics just like what happened on Xat. Assuming that this site will gain a larger community in the coming years, and at the end of Summer especially; a stricter Code of Conduct may be needed.
the system they have in place is such that when a moderator (just to group them all into one term) makes an option to warn, suspend, or otherwise interact with offenders; ALL the moderators are made aware of the interactions and we police ourselves if we are at odds with the actions. I dunno if that is in the same vein as your response there; but i thought it would be a nice bit of trivia to know :)
You mad a good point, but that was the main issue. Members will feel threatened by the moderators. It'll be like a socialist website with moderators deciding what is right or wrong rather than the Conduct.
Pardon my spelling. My laptop is lagging.
If we take for example the laws we have in place today to govern our societies; just because the law are written does not make people adhere to them. A set of laws are a way to compare ones actions with those that are deemed acceptable - they are no means a way to have people conform to those standards.
oh, and there was a time when a moderator made some unwise interactions; and the result was their moderating priviledges had been revoked.
They are not require to adhere them, however, the laws are used to make a comparison like you previously stated. My statement isn't calling for OS conformity; I was suggesting we put this somewhere in the OS Code of Conduct, so when a member gets banned you can show him which rule you broke rather than saying, "We banned you because we didn't like what you did." It'll make the member feel discriminated against.
if they do feel that they have been unduly targeted, there is a "jury by their peers" in place by which they can address their grievences if they so choose to. There is an automatic tag at the end of all warnings and such that say something of the effect; do such and such if you feel this is in error.
Keep in mind tha tim not against having more riggedly defined rules, im just tossing about a few debating points :)
I'm not against it either, I just think it'll help keep things in order a little better. Maybe before banning someone or during the ban notice, a message pops up telling them why they've been banned, and what they can do if they feel they've in banned unfairly?
An example would be spamming and getting banned for nine years. It would be extremely unfair.
I think that assumes a few things; that the moderators are incompetent or that there is no systemin place for choosing them; that the actions of one moderator cannot be undone by the adminstrators; that we can ban an account for 9 years. Moderators are not chosen by medal count, or skill level in a group; but by a panel that oversees the way that the person has been conducting themselves on the site.
spamming would result in "a warning", and if the action persists either another warning or the account gets suspended. if the person persists with new accounts, the admins decide if they want to take further actions to ensure the integrity of the site
im not sure if youve ever been given a warning or a suspension; so i dont know how familiar you are with them ...
I'm aware. The explanation I gave in my prier sentence wasn't meant to be taken seriously; but as an example. I'm well aware how moderators are chosen. We're also getting off topic. Is there anything in the Code of Conduct that says moderators can group together and pass judgement upon members? And wouldn't be a pain in the retriceto group together each time a member post Loli or a sexually interpreted image or text just too ban him? It'll be much easier to just ban him instantly because he broke the Conduct.
You can't say the politically correct term for donkey? K.
im not sure what you mean by "group together and pass judgement". We tend to be very individualistic. The CoC is not a writ of moderator conduct, but user conduct. In the vein that this site is designed to facilitate the studying of material, and not a free-for-all social extravaganza; i have to wonder why people would be posting such images to begin with. If there is an art group to study and promote critical thinking of these images, that would seem more appropriate to me. But I can think of no instance at the moment that would justifiy someone posting off topic images in other groups.
Trolls <--- There is a good instance. also, the way you stated your paragraph awhile back made it sound like there is some secret mod-club.
not a "club" but a group that is also policed by the administrators of the site to ensure that they are using their priviledges in an acceptable manner.
Trolls, in my view, are those that correspond with the spamming issues in the CoC Don't spam! Common forms of spam include: 1 Posting a question multiple times within a short period of time. 2 Posting a question that is off topic for a particular group (i.e. posting a physics question in the Mathematics group). 3 Posting a reply that is not relevant to the topic of discussion within that question. 4 Posting questions that are not, in fact, questions (for example, starting a question in the Mathematics group to wish someone "Happy Birthday"). Sending the same chat message repeatedly. 5 Filing false abuse reports on a user repeatedly.
off topic materials are ... well ... off topic :)
Correct, but he can post in the correct section with some crazy explanation. There is no way to know someone is a troll unless they admit it. It's basically the Murphy's law of OS.
Would writing a "do not troll" in the CoC prevent people from trolling? Or does a lack of a "do not troll" section hinder the moderators from dealing with trolls?
If the moderators take things into their own hands and do something outside the CoC, then they are acting on their own accord and no longer enforcing any rules.
And, what happens when a moderator takes things into their own hands and abuse their priviledges?
it would be good to note here, that moderators are not just the "police" that are bound to letter of the law; but are judges in their own right in order to make sound judgements based upon a given situation.
and when those judgements are compromised, they are relieved of theif moderating duties
lol, i said theif
Ha ha. Well, does it say in the CoC that moderators can make their own decisions?
Moderators are also under the CoC. You can get banned for flaming just as easily as I can.
The CoC is not what defines moderator conduct
moderator conduct includes the CoC, but is more finely tuned to the rights and responsibilities of the postion
So there is a Mod-conduct?
that is what i have been stating. When moderators make unwise choices, they are relieved of the position
So who decides what is appropriate for a moderator too post? His actions? What he does?
the administrators of the site make that decision, and take the needed actions.
a user who feels wronged, can appeal to the administrators who will make a call on it
So is there any actual moderator conduct, or rules you have too follow? Are you presented with any rules or standards when you become a moderator?
in jest, no, we just show up one day and we are purple ;)
we are given a list of guidlines to adhere to, and the option to accept or reject the position.
Alright. In those list of guidelines does it say anything about moderators making decisions that contradict the CoC?
A moderator bans someone for posting Lolicon.(which is full nudity but not porn, therefor not against the rules.)
where would someone post this Lolicon?
And is the conversation about the Lolicon beneficial to the study of the art? or is it lewd and untasteful?
you see, there is alot of thought that goes on when a moderator is making a decision. We judge each situation in its own light and make a call on it
or to put it another way: is the conversation involving the Lolicon the kind you would find in a classroom discussion; or an open all night adult theater?
only penguins and zebras are allowed to be both black and white. What do you mean by "yes"?
Lol. Hypothetically speaking, assuming that someone made a topic about the literary work of Doujinshi Lolicon. Would that be allowed even though it has lots of nudity?
If it is being discussed in the appropriate group in an appropriate manner; then yes
sorry to barge in at this point but I just want to say that, if one deems something inappropriate, how about just hitting the report abuse link and leaving it to the mods to decide what judgement to pass?
we have to assume incompetence and gross negligence running rampant among the mods ;)
in that case, at the end of the day, nothing will still be done and achieved except for long debates and arguments. I believe the mods were chosen with consideration of those values... unless i'm wrong
that makes me wonder; what is the difference between gross negligence and just plain "ewww" negligence?
hmmm i'm not quite sure, google results are still just garbage, uncle sam still thinks he's boss, and evolution is still a theory
I will now go start a thread with tons of Lolicon.:)
good luck with that :)
the admins policy tho might be stricter; the no shoes, no shirt, no service type ;)
Ha ha, Ami. You're funny.
But this has never been a problem here on OS.. And I highly doubt it will ever become one
have fun with the discussion, im gonna bounce!
I'm also out. Toodles.
Just my two cents: First despite what is defined as pornography by US or International law, this is a privately owned and operated cite. Therefore the owners/operators have the right to not ONLY abide by what is legally written, but also apply whatever rules that they see fit. You can think of this along the line of a restaurant requiring a dress shirt and tie. Sure you are not required by law to wear a shirt and tie, but if you want to eat there you'd better be and if you want to raise a big stink about it the owners of the restaurant will have you removed. The same goes here. Crying "but it's legal," is no good. It doesn't matter what is legal. All that matters is what the owners allow. As for CoC and Mod guidlines: One thing that site owners and admins want to avoid is the unnecessarily long and cumbersome 25 page CoC that nobody will read. Keeping the rules short and sweat ensures that users are reading the rules (those that haven't are not here long before they are instructed to read them). Same goes for the Mod guidelines. If I had a set of guidelines that was longer than I am tall that I was required to read I would have told @cshalvey "NO THANKS." Both user and mod guidelines are governed by common sense. "Use your head people," is the order of the day. If it seems out of line, it probably is. If it feels inappropriate, it definitely is. It only takes one person to feel uncomfortable about something for it to be inappropriate for this site. Aside from the serious (and I mean truly serious, not "oh we are having a serious art discussion, tee hee) art discussion, the images you describe would not be appropriate on this cite regardless where they are posted or what rules are specifically laid out in the CoC. Why? Because the images that you describe make me uncomfortable in this forum and I'm a fairly liberal minded guy, so I know I would not be the only one that would find this material objectionable. You must think about the users of this site that vast majority of which are minor children. As a parent, I would not allow my child to be a member of this site if such material was allowed. Therefore, the owners are not only within their right for not allowing such material, they are also making a business conscious and sensible decision. You cannot disregard the needs of the many to justify the wants of the few. You will soon be out of business.
keeping the _rules short and perspiring_ , while still invoking an "eww" is prolly more PC than the "short and sweat" vernacular ;)
I'm pretty sure the "Open" in Open Study isn't referring to the position of legs. I'm not sure I understand when near-pornographic images popping up would ever be a problem because this would always be disregarded as spam, and thus is not a loophole.
+1 Colm, "I know it when I see it." It is context dependent - and I draw a tougher line on OpenStudy than I necessarily draw in the rest of my life. The site is PG-13 and I moderate for it.
All though I appreciate your comment, Jaga, there is an issue. Some people view it as an appropriate topic or image to withhold. You have to understand their point of view, and even if it offends some people, the original group that posted the image or thread may not see it that way. It'll be completely unfair to singularly go after that one group of people because other people don't agree with what they post. That is why I suggest a minor rule chance that will make this so that certain group dos not see it as discrimination, rather they broke the rules. As a father of two I s were you're coming from, but I know when something is out of line or doesn't withhold well. One moderator may see a Lolicon as cute or interesting and leave it alone. Another moderator comes along and bans that user for the exact same thing because they saw it as inappropriate. Now we have an issue here because there is no set of guidelines or rules that decide who gets banned for posting certain images; rather you'll gt banned by mere chance. I don't think that would give OpenStudy a good reputation. You know? The whole, "Well... you might get banned...I'm not sure if you're breaking any rules.."
By that meaning of inapropriate images......I think of them to be uncomfortable for some people to look at....
im sorry to disappoint you @Compassionate but we art majors dont consider pornography as art. lolicons are not art. they're hentai for us. the are disgrace to art.
Mr. I'm a professional artist and am well aware with what is pornography or not. I've also studied law for a few years. Lolicon is in no way pornography.
I don't see a place in the Code of Conduct were it says something like, "Don't give out your password to sleezy online jerks. OpenStudy staff members will never ask you too disclose your password."
Also, OpenStudy officials will never use "sleezy online jerks".
"Sleezy Online Jerks," is a famous phrase created by Bungie too humorously make fun of hackers.
They still wouldn't use the slangs in such sensitive documents... :|
Bungie > OS :l
Alright, Colm chipped in a little bit but there are some issues that have been brought up since then that I'd like to address. I'm one of the admins here, and there are some specific points that I want to mention. You'll excuse me if this post bounces around a bit. I'm jumping in late. "The photo's themselves aren't inappropriate by law or reason. What one person may find inappropriate another might not find inappropriate." We operate on the policy of the least common denominator, which in this case is would be moderately conservative parents of children with ages between 13 (the youngest age for a student to legally use our site under COPPA) and 18 (the age at which most kids go to college and their parent's ideas of appropriate become a less relevant factor to what websites they are able to use). We aim to keep the content on this site of the caliber that those group of individuals would fine appropriate. So, while I will agree with you that the law may not consider them inappropriate, but there is a great amount of reason that has gone into our decisions. "However, if you do not have it written down then members will start to complain about moderators abusing their powers and going against the Cod of Conduct." The Code of Conduct isn't a comprehensive list. It never has been intended for that. Rather, it's a set of guidelines. In places where our interpretation and yours don't line up, we intervene - first with DM's / replies, then with official warnings, then with suspensions. We don't drop the banhammer as a first resort unless someone is obviously trolling. Regardless, no matter how we phrase the CoC, there are always going to be people complaining about abuse of power. Nobody likes being told they're doing something wrong. That said, it may be worth entertaining the possibility of adding something to this effect to the Code. "I'm not against it either, I just think it'll help keep things in order a little better. Maybe before banning someone or during the ban notice, a message pops up telling them why they've been banned, and what they can do if they feel they've in banned unfairly?" When suspensions and official warnings are issued, we do have such verbiage in place. Moderators are required to provide a reason for their action that is presented to the user on site *and* in an email sent to their inbox. We also instruct them to email firstname.lastname@example.org in the event they feel they were treated unfairly. That email goes straight to a small group of us that respond fairly quickly. Usually the same day if it's a weekday and by Monday if it's a weekend. "Correct, but he can post in the correct section with some crazy explanation. There is no way to know someone is a troll unless they admit it. It's basically the Murphy's law of OS." Actually, I have a finely trained nose for troll. It has a particular smell. Kind of like rotten plums, to be honest. "It'll be completely unfair to singularly go after that one group of people because other people don't agree with what they post. That is why I suggest a minor rule chance that will make this so that certain group dos not see it as discrimination, rather they broke the rules." We don't "go after" users for posting inappropriate content. As outlined above, we take ample steps, in private so as not to risk embarrassing the user, to inform them that their conduct is unacceptable. Only after these means fail do we resort to more aggressive measures.
This website doesn't really value the opinions of their users. If the mods don't like something then we can't go against it.
What about any of the responses in this thread gave you the impression we don't value the opinions of our users? We value your opinions very highly. I would argue that the time and thought we've put into our responses is a testament to that.
For the way this site is set up, you guys don't do enough. You either have make the users give up the freedom they have right now or you have to. If not this site will eventually fall to the ground.
That's a very dramatic and interesting statement in and of itself, but it doesn't answer my question: What about any of the responses in this thread gave you the impression we don't value the opinions of our users?
When you put your on values before the CofC or the rules behind this website. Everyone has done it.
So it's basically Communism? We go by what the mass wants? That also mans stripping the rights of small groups or individuals because you don't like what they have to say. Isn't that prejudice?
lol @Compassionate it's only communism if it's a government. It's almost like you're saying "The customer is always right" is enslavement of the workforce, damn jobs!
I was making the correlation that this website as a whole is governed by moderators and admins.
Well, this escalated quickly. I would love to continue this discussion, and look forward to doing so tomorrow, as it is pretty late here. However, I want to make sure that A) the views expressed here are addressed, and B) we can clear up some of the... misconceptions that are obviously being strewn around here. @Compassionate - I'm totally willing to debate with you, and even get downright metaphysical. But saying that what we do on OpenStudy is tantamount to Communism is neither accurate NOR constructive. OpenStudy is a community, and the Code of Conduct you keep referring to is something that has changed RADICALLY since its inception. These changes have almost unilaterally been as the result of suggestions/demands of our users via one-on-one interviews with them, via this OpenStudy Feedback forum, and via email. Also, in order to best address your points, would you mind listing exactly the areas/points you would like addressed? With how this thread has gone, I want to make sure that I don't miss anything, cheers!
So what, they made this site, did they not? It's not like they're forcing you to be here lol.
@Kainui Get rid of users that actually care? The people willing to help other students in need, you want them to leave? The people who abuse it don't really care and little action is taken against them but when this happens to users who really care about this site then there seems to be a problem here.
can this conversation really end already? this has never been a problem at openstudy and will hardly ever be.
@RyanL. You seem to be arguing either for or against a position, but you have not made that position clear.
The main point of this discussion is that in some parts the Code of Conduct should be more straightforward and in some areas it is lacking detail.
Oh sure, I'll add my voice to the fabulous chorus. “So the rules say no pornography is permitted onsite.” No, that's not what they say. The word pornography does not appear in the code of conduct anywhere. The code says: “Don't be offensive, inappropriate, or creepy!” It also says to avoid: ‘Sexual innuendo, or "hitting on people"’ The judgement call on what fits these is up to the moderators and, ultimately, us admins. It's likely to be rare for there to be a situation where we as admins consider lolicon to be appropriate. While amistre makes a very accommodating point that if it's in the right group and seems academic, he wouldn't delete it, the administrators would. As Farmdawg pointed out, we judge by the minimum age we expect here. Now, you ask for greater detail in the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct has deliberately been drafted to strike a balance between precision and flexibility. Nothing you've brought up particularly concerns me that it isn't detailed enough. What is in the code of conduct addresses your issues fairly clearly to me. To make things a bit clearer, I'll outline what our process would be were a lolicon to be posted in a couple of cases: For a regular user who posts it in a chat or reply or question without true cause (i.e., just because they find it funny): an official warning will be issued to them, with an explanation of what they've done wrong and a request that they not do it again. A link will be present to email@example.com, where they may email the admins for further clarification. Additionally, the content in question would be deleted. For a new user who does the same: if we determine this is a user from the same location as a user we've recently banned, a ban will immediately be issued. If we determine this is a user who hasn't come on before, we would follow the same path as above, though we may choose to direct message the user instead of issuing an official warning immediately. In short, your argument initially hinged on a word that doesn't appear in the code of conduct at all. While you're correct about the legal implications of the term, and the followups are correct that we are not only concerned with the law and therefore do not limit ourselves to its definitions, we don't use that word at all, so its definition is even more irrelevant. I will say that a fine addition to the CoC would be a line indicating the site has users that may be as young as 13, and to adjust behavior accordingly. Perhaps that will present the additional clarity you're looking for by better defining the boundaries of “inappropriate”?
@RyanL I really have no idea what you're talking about. You can trawl the archives of this group for proof if you need it, and point me to a site that better manages to maintain a positive community while accepting feedback from its users as well as we do. We'd love to learn from the way others have done it, but we are our users. I have no interest in your leaving our site, but I cannot rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement as saying we don't value the opinions of our users. If your complaint is that we debate new ideas at length, then you're the third person in as many weeks to make such a complaint and I will say the same thing I have in the past: new ideas merit debate. If they are proposed to use, you should expect to have to defend them. That is how we determine what is good in a quasi-democratic fashion (sorry to anyone who thinks we're a communist society): people present ideas, we as a community debate them, and if the debate comes out positive, and we have the time as developers to implement it, it gets implemented. Sometimes the idea is obviously good to us as developers and we build it with no debate because we have no opposition. Now, don't confuse this with a democracy: ultimately, we as the developers and administrators of the site decide what goes into it and what doesn't. But we place large value on community consensus, and a multitude of features and tweaks have been added and made based on it.
In short...just becuase something is legal dosn't make it right. Parents and teachers should feel good about sending their students to open sudy. And should girlfriends and boyfirends...photos that cause people to be uncomfortable because of a sexual nature should be removed, as this is not a debate board but a place to sutdy.
I strongly agree, Open Study is a great resource for schools but because of some profile pictures, there is some problems occurring. There should be something stating what should not be revealed in certain pictures. For example, clothing in the pictures should be a certain length and not to revealing preferably for both male and females.And even there should be no kissing or any similar acts in the pictures either, and I have seen more and more of these kinds of pictures. This is not a website made to socialize but to learn and all users need to understand that. I really think the pictures should go through some administration before being allowed to be put up, but this is a rising issue and needs to be dealt with fast.
thanks waheguru. I want to send my students here with confidence. Since they are college students and not traditonal they often have small children sitting on their laps as they work.
This is a site made specifically to *bridge* socialization and learning. There's a reason we have chats here, and it's because we think the two can and should coexist. That said, if you consider a profile picture to be problematic, please report abuse on the user in question and we'll make a call on whether we agree or not and act accordingly.
I was addressing the origiional posters ideas that its ok to post near porn becuase it's not illegial. Quite simply. it's not ok.
And we fully agree, as I hope our responses made evident :)
Shadow, you're saying, "As long as we approve it; then it fine." You make it sound like the Moderators are in complete dictator control, and do not care what their members think. Like I've previously stated, by doing this you are discriminating against small groups of people. Also, without having this in the Code of Conduct, "No pornographic images," and someone upload pornography, you can face legal actions for having pornography on a site without a warning, set rule, or +18 login screen. If this happens OpenStudy can be removed, and the creators will face a nice charge too their bank accounts for having pornography uploaded without a disclaimer. Like the previous poster said, a lot of children use this site, and some college students with their children. A child viewing a pornographic image is ILLEGAL and the staff WILL be held responsible. A college student or adult on this website with their child will NOT be happy too see such a thing; even if it is not an issue right now, OpenStudy is a growing site and will become an issue very soon at this rate. Putting this in the Code of Conduct will not only let OpenStudy say, "We said no pornography." but it will also hold the original poster or account responsible and not the staff if such an event were too happen. I'm trying to help you guys. Work with me on this, please.
I'm not really interested in discussing the way our policies work any further. Ultimately, it is a dictatorship, simply one where we choose to pay attention to the feedback our users give us. We have had relatively little complaint about discriminating against any group until now. I've detailed our process clearly, including how we take users' views into account (namely, feedback in this group and the resulting discussions). Finally, you will find in the terms and conditions an admonition that: “In addition, you agree not to use the Service or the Site to: [...] - upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; [...]” I'm not sure where you inferred that we will not remove pornography from the site. I have said that we are stricter than obscenity laws, not more lax, so I'm not sure what it is that you're worried about in that regard.
"WE deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful." If someone uploads pornographic images, and it gets reported; then it completely falls on OpenStudy for not moderating the site effectively and correctly. Because you've set no guidelines; everything falls on OpenStudy. I strongly reckon you change it.
I really don't want to be difficult; but I honestly see a problem that needs fixing. It's not only me, a few other people on this thread see the same issue.
"If someone uploads pornographic images, and it gets reported; then it completely falls on OpenStudy for not moderating the site effectively and correctly." If that argument held any legal water then sites like YouTube would be out of business because DMCA Takedowns would shut down the actual site instead of result in the removal of user content. Additionally, FWIW, you'll also note in the TOS that, much like the TOS for YouTube and others, we are clear that the legal responsibility for what you post still falls on you. The fact is that we have set adequate policies on this topic. Our Terms of Service and Code of Conduct have effectively communicated our expectations for over 95% (conservative estimate) of our active, regular users. We have gone to great lengths to communicate them to you in this thread. Whether or not you find the Code of Conduct clear, I think it's safe to say that you find our intent clear, especially after participating in this thread. I'm sorry if you don't think we've done a good job of explaining that in the Code of Conduct and Terms of Service, because we disagree with you for the time being. We are at an impasse.
I'm going to close this thread, and most likely make a new one in a few months when I have tallied up enough information too support my claims. You're right, @farmdawgnation , we will only go in circles in our current debate. In the meantime I will look for some other possible issues in the Code of Conduct that can cause OpenStudy trouble. Regards, Stephen
As well, the picture I linked has been removed by 404 on 4Chan.