She's not significant today, and yet...

[Steeleballz 7,550]

16 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

It has been clearly stated under the TOS in the past that side or under ####### was fine as long as no part of the Areola is visible. Areola is a big no no.

 

Old timers will remember this,. Sometimes thing that were offensive are not offensive anymore and things that have been fine for years are now offensive because someone got offended. You have to really embrace the TOS and keep up with the fluid issues to stay on top of things.

 

An abbreviation for people with a  passionate obsessive dislike for Trump was fine for years until one day it wasn't. 

 

Oddly enough a certain abbreviation for Chinese communist, used often in reference to he origin of a Ak-47 was fine for years before one day in landed several people in the Gulag.

 

Posting a link to the FBI UCR statistics page almost got a user  perma banned, in one of the most bizarre cases in VJ history.

 

Us long time posters have some stories.

 

   The TOS says sideboob and underboob is fine? I mean, I agree they are fine, but I don't think the TOS actually says that.

[Boiler 46,124]

Fine by me, but I did not think the ToS mentions boobs of any variety.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Has Ewok ever in the history of VJ ever responded to any of you on any issue. 

 

 As is often posted, he is kind of busy with his day job. He doesn't always respond quickly, and I don't think he really has time to respond to every frivolous thing like how skimpy a bikini image can be.  Especially when there are already sticky posts addressing the issue and answering questions. However I agree with Lucky,  he does get back to people on issues of importance. Eventually.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Fine by me, but I did not think the ToS mentions boobs of any variety.

 

  I agree. I'm not an expert. I really just quickly skimmed the TOS, but I would have remembered that part.

[Boiler 46,124]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I agree. I'm not an expert. I really just quickly skimmed the TOS, but I would have remembered that part.

Yes, it would have stuck out.

[Carpe Vinum 2,330]

On 9/22/2019 at 12:02 PM, Falcon Cara said:

 

I feel the same way.  I just don't see any viable candidate to beat Trump, and if the economy is still strong he will be a shoe in and win by a landslide

 

 

Biden is the only one who stands a chance and they are going to run him out of Dodge before the election.....

[Boiler 46,124]

Ukraine may be his final death knell.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The TOS says sideboob and underboob is fine? I mean, I agree they are fine, but I don't think the TOS actually says that.

Well its kinda like the 14th amendment and abortion, it does not specifically say but I do recall that no Areola was the tipping point of what could not be shown.

 

Of course I cant remember what I had for breakfast so who knows 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I agree. I'm not an expert. I really just quickly skimmed the TOS, but I would have remembered that part.

None of you remember that conversation ?

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Yes, it would have stuck out.

but only if the office had the AC turned down 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

Nature's thermometers

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

None of you remember that conversation ?

 

   Is there a link we can refer to? I don't usually post images that need TOS clarification so perhaps I wasn't paying attention. Also, when I am not posting, it tends to be months at a time, so I may have just missed this altogether.

 

   My feeling is the "TOS" only refers to that page we read (hopefully) and agreed to when we joined the site. You may have had a conversation about how certain parts of the TOS are interpreted, but there shouldn't be an expectation that it will reach everyone else by osmosis. That was specific to you. It's hard to say I agreed to something if you and TBone discussed it in PM (for example). It was probably something specific that you were involved in. I don't doubt that the issue of image content has been discussed and clarified somewhere.

 

  That said though, we also should understand the TOS does generally state that it is not limited to the examples given, and also says content and accounts can be removed for any reason. It's hard to argue something that you already agreed doesn't even need a reason to happen.

   

[Boiler 46,124]

If you know what does or does not pass the ToS then you need to be a Mod, only the Mod's are inducted in the inner workings of the ToS. We can just watch in awe.

[Shiran 1,134]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

Ukraine may be his final death knell.

It is interesting how this comment can be interpreted in 2 very different ways depending on who is reading it. 

[Dashinka 24,803]

59 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Is there a link we can refer to? I don't usually post images that need TOS clarification so perhaps I wasn't paying attention. Also, when I am not posting, it tends to be months at a time, so I may have just missed this altogether.

 

   My feeling is the "TOS" only refers to that page we read (hopefully) and agreed to when we joined the site. You may have had a conversation about how certain parts of the TOS are interpreted, but there shouldn't be an expectation that it will reach everyone else by osmosis. That was specific to you. It's hard to say I agreed to something if you and TBone discussed it in PM (for example). It was probably something specific that you were involved in. I don't doubt that the issue of image content has been discussed and clarified somewhere.

 

  That said though, we also should understand the TOS does generally state that it is not limited to the examples given, and also says content and accounts can be removed for any reason. It's hard to argue something that you already agreed doesn't even need a reason to happen.

   

Just like the Bible, open for interpretation.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

5 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The TOS says sideboob and underboob is fine? I mean, I agree they are fine, but I don't think the TOS actually says that.

Ok let me clarify. At some point there was a discussion about what was appropriate and not appropriate as far as cleavage, due to the fact some mod had deleted something or taken action. (its been so long ago it may not have even been the same current wardens). At some point some member of the management team, said it was ok as long as no Areola was visible.

 

It was a running joke for a long time here.