Why does the verlociraptor have feathers?

Also, why was about the only decent thread outside of OD locked?

Why does the verlociraptor have feathers?

Also, why was about the only decent thread outside of OD locked?
Because we got fed up with it. And it's now been deleted because I'm even more fed up with it :p

Also a post got reported that wasn't really report-worthy in my opinion (but Andrew got to the thread first)

Because we got fed up with it. And it's now been deleted because I'm even more fed up with it :p

Also a post got reported that wasn't really report-worthy in my opinion (but Andrew got to the thread first)
which thread was that

which thread was thatFunny pictures thread.

Now it seems to have been deleted.

*sigh* More nice things about this forum going down the plughole.

Deleted?

Dang, I lost some of the pictures I posted in there. :-/

I say good riddance, it was going dangerously close to "old pictures everyone's seen a million times" territory.

undelete and move it to od

Deleted?

Dang, I lost some of the pictures I posted in there. :-/

Would you really like me to go through and find them for you?

Honestly, that was the worst thread ever.



Edit: is it just me, or is that advice that pops up on that game really, really bad?

Would you really like me to go through and find them for you?

Honestly, that was the worst thread ever.It's a nice thread for anyone with a sense of humour.

It's a nice thread for anyone with a sense of humour.

Finding something funny is only indicative of a sense of humour when the thing in question is actually funny.

Edit: is it just me, or is that advice that pops up on that game really, really bad?
I never paid attention to it, really.

Nor did me and thomasp -- which is the only reason it lasted so long. I lost count of how many rules it broke.

Nor did me and thomasp -- which is the only reason it lasted so long. I lost count of how many rules it broke.
Sup was actually talking about the game's advice, not the thread, I think.

Anyway, I'm personally surprised that the Vending Machine of INCREDIBLE POWER thread has survived for so long, as it seems to be a case of "hey, I'll post something, then you guys post somethnig totally unrelated! It'll be awesome!" Except it isn't.

Oops.

Yeah, I don't read that thread either. If stuff isn't reported, there's little chance of it getting deleted. Should it be killed?

Finding something funny is only indicative of a sense of humour when the thing in question is actually funny.You don't find these sort of images funny?:

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1083/fp1cb2.jpg

http://www.frostfirezoo.com/files/u1/jesuson4.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/674/howitzeroc5.jpg

http://de.fishki.net/picsw/012008/31/asia/39_asia.jpg

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/8/8e/BibleWarningLabel.jpg/502px-BibleWarningLabel.jpg

Meh.

The first is pretty funny, in a stolen kind of way.
The next went twice around the internet last month and was never that funny to begin with. Oh ha ha, a knob gag. With added Jesus. Well, that's teh ****ing lulz right there. Frankly it's more tragic than anything.
The third isn't funny and never will be.
The fourth is passably amusing, though it's not totally appropriate (I'm really not sure what Leisure Suit Larry will do to this rule) and typing in the URL on it sent me to a picture of a naked woman. What part of that do you think is obeying the forum rules?
The last was funny once but it hails from the day after Photoshop was released. (And to be frank it's more of a good idea than a good joke.)

Out of those images there, I'd have been forced to delete 20%. Can you see why I didn't want to read the full 800-post thread to check it over? Easier just to bin the whole thing. If people reported the bad posts then this kind of thing would be cleaned up as it grew, making the problem go away, but as it is, I certainly can't be bothered to police that. I don't get paid for this, you know.

As far as I'm concerned, the picture of the woman is not inappropriate. She is not naked as you suggest. Nothing is on show Edit: Misread your post. After you locked the thread, I went through the last couple of pages trying to see what image got the thread closed. The only one I saw that came close was the one I posted of a MySpace-posed photo taken with the unflushed toilet in view. Sorry but I think you've taken a step too far here. I even took the picture of that woman from a much larger forum than this one. They didn't have a problem with it, despite having far more moderators and younger members than here.

I'm outgrowing this forum anyway. Maybe it's time to move on. That was about the only thread outside of OD that I liked, and even OD has become a bit dry lately; the odd one-off thread like 'The Question', about half a dozen 'What are you .......ing?' threads, and 100%OT and PEAO & NEAO.

A woman singing with her legs apart while a hozillion men take photos and video footage of her crotch? Yeah, I'd call that inappropriate. Your internal censor must be switched off, Andy.

A woman singing with her legs apart while a hozillion men take photos and video footage of her crotch? Yeah, I'd call that inappropriate. Your internal censor must be switched off, Andy.No, I would not call that inappropriate.

A woman singing with her legs apart while a hozillion men take photos and video footage of her crotch? Yeah, I'd call that inappropriate. Your internal censor must be switched off, Andy.that one's on the borderline. it's not REALLY inappropriate. there's nothing wrong with the image itsself, but it's very suggestive of something entirely inappropriate. it's not something that should be present in a place where children might see it, such as this forum, but it's not something you would get in trouble for if you were looking at it in public, you'd just get a few funny looks :p

God that's almost as addictive as Squares 2.
the music's not quite on the same level though
A woman singing with her legs apart while a hozillion men take photos and video footage of her crotch? Yeah, I'd call that inappropriate. Your internal censor must be switched off, Andy.
i'd have to see the picture in question but it sounds funny to me

i'd have to see the picture in question but it sounds funny to meread star worms' post a few posts back. it's one of the images he has listed.

A woman singing with her legs apart while a hozillion men take photos and video footage of her crotch? Yeah, I'd call that inappropriate. Your internal censor must be switched off, Andy.
I disagree. It's just a funny image. And besides, what's so inappropriate about a girl's crotch? The guys taking the pictures are the ones behaving inappropriately but that doesn't make the image inappropriate.

Suirely a photo of inappropriate behaviour is inappropriate?

Suirely a photo of inappropriate behaviour is inappropriate?
Nope. If you saw a picture of someone laughing in a funeral would you class it as an inappropriate image?

Even so, I don't remember anything close to that image in the actual thread, apart from that one I posted with the unflushed toilet in view, which I also don't class as inappropriate.

http://www.plasticbamboo.com/wp/wp/wp-content/uploads/longest_hotdog.jpg

Yes.
It's the longest.

Even so, I don't remember anything close to that image in the actual thread, apart from that one I posted with the unflushed toilet in view, which I also don't class as inappropriate.

Put it this way - if it's a photo you'd feel comfortable showing people at a large social gathering, it's appropriate. Personally, I don't think I'd react well react well if I went to a part and some guy presented me with a picture of an unflushed toilet.

No, I would not call that inappropriate.

IT CONTAINS A LINK TO SITE WITH PHOTOS OF NAKED WOMEN.

Personally, I don't find that offensive at all, but that's not the point. The point is that some people do and last I heard Team17 like their forum to be inoffensive more than they like it to be a bastion of free speech -- and in any case those pictures have nothing to do with Team17 or their games, services or websites, so at the very least it's off-topic. And the last page had that "i love to cook sock" image, which I'm fairly sure had just a little nipple showing, along with the more obvious, albeit implicit, reference to oral sex. Again, I find none of the above offensive, but that's not the same as inappropriate.

But mostly, I just think that thread was mostly moronic spam.

I agree with Andrew on this one, and it was me who deleted the thread (Andrew had locked it).

This forum should stay PG/PG-13 where possible, due to the age range that T17's games appeal to - OK we might have a bit of an issue when Leisure Suit Larry comes out, but we'll worry about that nearer the time - and some of the pics in that thread were definitely not "PG". Looking through the mod-log, that thread had been moderated enough, and considering how busy Andrew and I are in real life, it was easier to bin it.


It's only a thread on an internet forum - it's not the end of the world :p

I think the occational linking to an awesome image is fine, (yes that goes against my last post), but we don't need a thread for random funny images, be they appropriate or not. The internet is full of funny images and one does not have to try hard to find them.

IT CONTAINS A LINK TO SITE WITH PHOTOS OF NAKED WOMEN.I'll assume you mean this one, after looking at the site:
http://widelec.org/stuff/edyta_herbus/edyta_herbus_24.jpg

Would you call this woman naked?:

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/10/26/wonder-woman-teresa.jpg

Nothing is on show, but she could be. By your logic, that should not be allowed in case she is. Nothing is on show in the top image. Are we just not allowed to post images with body skin showing, or something?

Personally, I don't find that offensive at all, but that's not the point. The point is that some people do and last I heard Team17 like their forum to be inoffensive more than they like it to be a bastion of free speech -- and in any case those pictures have nothing to do with Team17 or their games, services or websites, so at the very least it's off-topic. And the last page had that "i love to cook sock" image, which I'm fairly sure had just a little nipple showing, along with the more obvious, albeit implicit, reference to oral sex. Again, I find none of the above offensive, but that's not the same as [I]inappropriate.

But mostly, I just think that thread was mostly moronic spam.The cook sock image is a prime example of something that is not inappropriate but to over conservative people would be. It's a joke that children will not get. Adults often think that children think in the same way as they do. They do not. The thread was mostly a bunch of hilarious images.

Secondly, OO is not specifically about T17, and is for anything related to the internet, games and computers. Funny pictures slots right into that description.

I think the occational linking to an awesome image is fine, (yes that goes against my last post), but we don't need a thread for random funny images, be they appropriate or not. The internet is full of funny images and one does not have to try hard to find them.I disagreee. I have only found these images when someone posts them on a thread.

I agree with Andrew on this one, and it was me who deleted the thread (Andrew had locked it).

This forum should stay PG/PG-13 where possible, due to the age range that T17's games appeal to - OK we might have a bit of an issue when Leisure Suit Larry comes out, but we'll worry about that nearer the time - and some of the pics in that thread were definitely not "PG". Looking through the mod-log, that thread had been moderated enough, and considering how busy Andrew and I are in real life, it was easier to bin it.


It's only a thread on an internet forum - it's not the end of the world :pAnd as I said, I took many of those images, including the "cook sock" and the singing woman from a forum which has far more children as members than this forum. I just feel like I am not allowed to express myself on this forum anymore. The only half decent area left is OD. Why? Because there is less moderation of posts. We have more freedom. We're more restricted when posting outside. No wonder it's gone to crap - we don't want to post there, and post here instead.

[IMG]http://www.plasticbamboo.com/wp/wp/wp-content/uploads/longest_hotdog.jpg

Yes.
It's the longest.Careful. It could be inappropriate as it is phallic.

Oh, come on, Andy. You're just being stupid now.

[img]http://widelec.org/stuff/edyta_herbus/edyta_herbus_24.jpg[img]

Would you call this woman naked?
Uh, yeah.

That's one naked chick right there.

Indeed. And when you consider that I am, in fact, reading the forum today from work, a picture liek that appearing on my screen can get me into a lot of trouble. Thus, inappropriate.

It's NSFW I suppose. But I still don't see it as inappropriate.

Surely NSFW is, by definition, inappropriate?

Infraction for inappropriate language, eh? Where was there inappropriate language? Is the word 'crap' now inappropriate?

No, but I imagine referring to an oversized hot dog as "phallic" probably is.

I'll assume you mean this one, after looking at the site:
[img]http://widelec.org/stuff/edyta_herbus/edyta_herbus_24.jpg[img]
Yes, (although there's far more explicit stuff on there too) and you just racked up three infraction points by posting it here. There are rules, you know, even in OD, and if you rebel against them please don't think I won't ban you.

Would you call this woman naked?:

[img]http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/10/26/wonder-woman-teresa.jpg[img]

Nothing is on show, but she could be. By your logic, that should not be allowed in case she is. Nothing is on show in the top image. Are we just not allowed to post images with body skin showing, or something?
The top image is implied nude (that's a photography term, not something I've made up), the bottom image is not. There's a difference there, even if you can't see it. The top picture is very obviously one of a naked woman. Now I'm not totally certain, as I haven't checked with Martyn or Dave, but I'm pretty sure that there's a rule against that here.

The cook sock image is a prime example of something that is not inappropriate but to over conservative people would be.
No, you're thinking of "offensive". It's not offensive but to over-conservative people it would be. It is inappropriate.

Secondly, OO is not specifically about T17, and is for anything related to the internet, games and computers. Funny pictures slots right into that description.
I'm sorry that you have misunderstood the topic of Online Orgy.


And as I said, I took many of those images, including the "cook sock" and the singing woman from a forum which has far more children as members than this forum. I just feel like I am not allowed to express myself on this forum anymore. The only half decent area left is OD. Why? Because there is less moderation of posts.
That's because this area is invisible and Team17 will never have to answer for it. And to be fair, if you're not copying game discs or posting soft porn, there's really not much moderation anywhere else either.

It's NSFW I suppose. But I still don't see it as inappropriate.

It's inappropriate because Team17 say so. They've chosen what feel this forum should have and that picture doesn't match it. You lot can trade hardcore porn for all I care, but do it elsewhere. It's not my call what is and isn't allowed on this forum, and I'd rather get the blame for one person thinking Team17 have a bad website than several thinking they let kids see porn.

Please don't make me lock this thread. That would be a shame.

Infraction for inappropriate language, eh? Where was there inappropriate language? Is the word 'crap' now inappropriate?

There's a limited range of options available for infractions, and "implied nude ladies" isn't on the list -- it very rarely comes up for non-spambot users. Now stop being picky and either shut up of have a sensible discussion.

No, but I imagine referring to an oversized hot dog as "phallic" probably is.Are you being serious?

'phallic' is not an inappropriate word.

Are you being serious?

'phallic' is not an inappropriate word.

In what context?

Here are the T17 rules:Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Team17 Forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Team17 Forum, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Team17 Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

Yes, (although there's far more explicit stuff on there too) and you just racked up three infraction points by posting it here. There are rules, you know, even in OD, and if you rebel against them please don't think I won't ban you.As you can see, I didn't break any rules.


The top image is implied nude (that's a photography term, not something I've made up), the bottom image is not. There's a difference there, even if you can't see it. The top picture is very obviously one of a naked woman. Now I'm not totally certain, as I haven't checked with Martyn or Dave, but I'm pretty sure that there's a rule against that here.Implied nude is not nude. They have pictures like that in women's magazines and are perfectly legal for even children to look at. Hell, you even get naked sculptures of women in many gardens.


No, you're thinking of "offensive". It's not offensive but to over-conservative people it would be. It is inappropriate.Your opinion, not mine. I do not see it as inappropriate, and instead as a funny joke.


I'm sorry that you have misunderstood the topic of Online Orgy.
Websites, Clans, Newbies and NerdsWhere does it say everything has to be T17-oriented?



That's because this area is invisible and Team17 will never have to answer for it. And to be fair, if you're not copying game discs or posting soft porn, there's really not much moderation anywhere else either.No, it's not. I'm not just talking about images here. General posts are moderated more strictly outside. We've had our fair share of bad threads in OD which were allowed to continue.



It's inappropriate because Team17 say so. They've chosen what feel this forum should have and that picture doesn't match it. You lot can trade hardcore porn for all I care, but do it elsewhere. It's not my call what is and isn't allowed on this forum, and I'd rather get the blame for one person thinking Team17 have a bad website than several thinking they let kids see porn.You should write for the Daily Mail. No porn has been posted anywhere. I don't know what your idea of hardcore porn is, but for me it is certainly not like those pictures I posted above.


Please don't make me lock this thread. That would be a shame.It would be.




There's a limited range of options available for infractions, and "implied nude ladies" isn't on the list -- it very rarely comes up for non-spambot users. Now stop being picky and either shut up of have a sensible discussion.I am having a very sensible discussion, one that you don't seem to be paying attention to. A perfectly good thread was locked and deleted through overzealous moderating. We've all been saying this forum has been going down the pot. The community is divided in two. It's hardly building bridges, is it?

In what context?

In the context of describing the giant hot dog as phallic.

As you can see, I didn't break any rules.
Team17 and the Mods stillr eserve the right to remove or edit potentially objectionable posts, mind. Nude women, i think, quality there. Incidentally one of my co-workers saw the image and told me that I should be on "that sort of site" while I'm at work. I explained what the forum was, who'd posted the image, what the current discussion was about and how you don't consider these images to be inappropriate.

He agrees with Andrew and I - it's just not appropriate for a forum that's supposed to be "family friendly".


Implied nude is not nude.
Exactly. But ti is implied nude, which is exactly the point. Nudity is implied. There is the potential for nudity. She certainly looks very nude, from where I'm sitting.

They have pictures like that in women's magazines and are perfectly legal for even children to look at. Hell, you even get naked sculptures of women in many gardens.
That's nice, but the Team17 Forum is neither a woman's magazine nor is it a garden. It's a website people could well have up on their screens while they're at work, and content like that can potentially get these people in trouble or even cost them their jobs. That's inappropriate in my book.

Your opinion, not mine. I do not see it as inappropriate, and instead as a funny joke.
I'd be inclined to suggest you send your Sense of Humour back to the shop for a tune-up.

Where does it say everything has to be T17-oriented?
There's a ruddy great big purple logo at the top of the page. That, really, should be your first hint.

You should write for the Daily Mail. No porn has been posted anywhere. I don't know what your idea of hardcore porn is, but for me it is certainly not like those pictures I posted above.
Andrew didn't say those images were hardcore porn. Thosei mages are inappropriate, though. Offensive? No. Inappropriate? Yes.

I am having a very sensible discussion, one that you don't seem to be paying attention to. A perfectly good thread was locked and deleted through overzealous moderating. We've all been saying this forum has been going down the pot. The community is divided in two. It's hardly building bridges, is it?
I don't think ti was overzealous modding because, as I've previously said, IF SOMEONE HAD THAT IMAGE UP ON THEIR COMPUTER AT WORK AND THEIR BOSS SAW IT, THEY COULD LOSE THEIR JOB. Surely that is a benchmark for inappropriate content. I don't find the image particularly offensive, but it's not appropriate. Please, for the love of Glod, try to see some sense.

In the context of describing the giant hot dog as phallic.
You were mocking the mods there with that comment, incidentally - suggesting they might delete the post because it had a hot dog in it. A hot dog is very different from an implied nude model.

A reminder - Offensive and Inappropriate do not mean the same thing, Andy.

It's NSFW I suppose. But I still don't see it as inappropriate.

Surely NSFW is, by definition, inappropriate?

And therefore, anything that is NSFW is NSFPG-13, and therefore not suitable for this forum.

Here are the T17 rules:

As you can see, I didn't break any rules.

No, if you read the announcements, you'd see that these (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?p=624909#post624909) are the forum rules.

Where does it say everything has to be T17-oriented?

Because T17 pay the server, hosting and bandwidth bills.


I'm going to lock this thread now.














And re-open it when I've split this discussion into another thread :p

Implied nude is not nude. They have pictures like that in women's magazines and are perfectly legal for even children to look at. Hell, you even get naked sculptures of women in many gardens.
Implied nude actually is nude. She's very obviously not wearing any clothes? What possible definition of "nude" are you working to? Are you telling me you refuse to see the difference between a head shot and a full length naked woman from the side but can see a clear difference between a naked woman covering her breasts and one showing them? That sounds kind of offensive.

Here are the T17 rules:

As you can see, I didn't break any rules.
Your opinion, not mine. I do not see it as inappropriate, and instead as a funny joke.
We're rapidly learning, I think, why you're not a mod.

Or a comedian.

Where does it say everything has to be T17-oriented?
Why would we have one non-T17 forum that's strictly about the internet? Why would that exist? That would be like randomly having a haberdashery board. I don't know if or where it's made explicit, but that's the rule. That's always been the rule. It just sometimes seems like it isn't because contrary to your imagined complaints, there's really not that much moderation goes on.

No, it's not. I'm not just talking about images here. General posts are moderated more strictly outside. We've had our fair share of bad threads in OD which were allowed to continue.
More strictly, yes, but not that heavily that you can't have a fun chat. You're overreacting.

I am having a very sensible discussion
Really, then let's see how you answer a simple question...
In the context of describing the giant hot dog as phallic.
...well, that didn't last long.



Seriously. Stop it. You're acting like a crazy person.



If you want to see Hilarious Images, try this:

http://www.modblog.co.uk/alex_down_under/images/2007/08/20/cartmanauthoritahthumb.jpg

I'd be inclined to suggest you send your Sense of Humour back to the shop for a tune-up.Har de har har.


There's a ruddy great big purple logo at the top of the page. That, really, should be your first hint.Have you visited many forums? Did you know that in a company's forum, you do not have to talk about the company, and even entire discussions are allowed to be irrelevant to the company?


Andrew didn't say those images were hardcore porn. Thosei mages are inappropriate, though. Offensive? No. Inappropriate? Yes.
You lot can trade hardcore porn for all I care, but do it elsewhere. It's not my call what is and isn't allowed on this forum, and I'd rather get the blame for one person thinking Team17 have a bad website than several thinking they let kids see porn.As a direct response to the image I posted. The 'hardcore porn' is implied by the direct response. The last sentence is directly said towards the image I posted, and is more than implied. The image itself is barely verging on softcore.

Team17 and the Mods stillr eserve the right to remove or edit potentially objectionable posts, mind. Nude women, i think, quality there. Incidentally one of my co-workers saw the image and told me that I should be on "that sort of site" while I'm at work. I explained what the forum was, who'd posted the image, what the current discussion was about and how you don't consider these images to be inappropriate.

He agrees with Andrew and I - it's just not appropriate for a forum that's supposed to be "family friendly".



Exactly. But ti is implied nude, which is exactly the point. Nudity is implied. There is the potential for nudity. She certainly looks very nude, from where I'm sitting.


That's nice, but the Team17 Forum is neither a woman's magazine nor is it a garden. It's a website people could well have up on their screens while they're at work, and content like that can potentially get these people in trouble or even cost them their jobs. That's inappropriate in my book.

....

I don't think ti was overzealous modding because, as I've previously said, IF SOMEONE HAD THAT IMAGE UP ON THEIR COMPUTER AT WORK AND THEIR BOSS SAW IT, THEY COULD LOSE THEIR JOB. Surely that is a benchmark for inappropriate content. I don't find the image particularly offensive, but it's not appropriate. Please, for the love of Glod, try to see some sense.
You're missing the point entirely. No nude, or even implied nude images were posted in the image thread.

You were mocking the mods there with that comment, incidentally - suggesting they might delete the post because it had a hot dog in it. A hot dog is very different from an implied nude model.Thank you for that, captain obvious.

A reminder - Offensive and Inappropriate do not mean the same thing, Andy.

I never said or implied offensive or inappropriate were the same thing.

Star Worms: This is just an internet forum - why are you taking everything so seriously? OK, so you disagree with someone else's opinions - so what? THIS IS THE INTERNET! Just accept it and move on.

If you don't, I really cannot see this ending well - it will most likely end with you leaving the forum in one of many ways.

Have you visited many forums? Did you know that in a company's forum, you do not have to talk about the company, and even entire discussions are allowed to be irrelevant to the company?
And the same is true here, but by tolerance, not legislation. All I'm saying there is that I could quite reasonably have trashed the whole thread weeks ago on the grounds that it's off-topic. If you want to be pedantic about every bloody thing then essentially you're asking for the place run bureaucratically -- in which case that's what I'll say happened and you have no recourse.


As a direct response to the image I posted. The 'hardcore porn' is implied by the direct response. The last sentence is directly said towards the image I posted, and is more than implied. The image itself is barely verging on softcore.
It wasn't implied; it was inferred. You've worked yourself up and you're not thinking straight. I meant that I don't care what sort of thing you look at and I won't be offended even be hardcore porn, but that doesn't mean it's OK here. It was patently obvious that I didn't think that image was hardcore porn. I'm a single man with broadband.



You're missing the point entirely. No nude, or even implied nude images were posted in the image thread.
They were linked to.

I never said or implied offensive or inappropriate were the same thing.

No, but you use the latter like the former.

Have you visited many forums? Did you know that in a company's forum, you do not have to talk about the company, and even entire discussions are allowed to be irrelevant to the company?
But it has been stated in several places at several points in the forums' history that the Team 17 Forum is for discussion of Team 17 stuff. If OO was for non-Team 17 stuff, what the Hell is the point of OD?


As a direct response to the image I posted. The 'hardcore porn' is implied by the direct response. The last sentence is directly said towards the image I posted, and is more than implied. The image itself is barely verging on softcore.
I can only assume you are being intentionally thick to try and put across some kind of non-existent point. He wasn't saying that the image was "hardcore porn". He was saying that you could trade hardcore porn elsewhere if you felt so inclined. It's clear he's not referring to the image as hardcore anything.

You're missing the point entirely. No nude, or even implied nude images were posted in the image thread.
I woudln't know, having not seen the thread in question, but I trust Andrew and Thomas' judgement on the matter.

Thank you for that, captain obvious.
You're welcome Boy Misinterprets-Basic-Concepts.

I never said or implied offensive or inappropriate were the same thing.
It's been very strongly implied by a lot of your previous statements on the matter, and I won't insult everyone's intellect by quoting them again. (Edit: Actually, Andrew said it better.)

Star Worms: This is just an internet forum - why are you taking everything so seriously? OK, so you disagree with someone else's opinions - so what? THIS IS THE INTERNET! Just accept it and move on.Would you care if this site was just suddenly deleted? I'm sure you would. So it's just the internet? I'm sure you'd be pretty annoyed.

And the same is true here, but by tolerance, not legislation. All I'm saying there is that I could quite reasonably have trashed the whole thread weeks ago on the grounds that it's off-topic. If you want to be pedantic about every bloody thing then essentially you're asking for the place run bureaucratically -- in which case that's what I'll say happened and you have no recourse.It's not off-topic. I'm not 'pedantic about every bloody thing' but locking at deleting that thread was over the top. I would like to see it either revived, or at least be less heavy handed in future.



It wasn't implied; it was inferred. You've worked yourself up and you're not thinking straight. I meant that I don't care what sort of thing you look at and I won't be offended even be hardcore porn, but that doesn't mean it's OK here. It was patently obvious that I didn't think that image was hardcore porn. I'm a single man with broadband.Can you at least send me the links of the images (via facebook, or whatever method) that were deemed inappropriate?




They were linked to.I'm not aware that I posted the photo of that woman with the microphone in that thread.




No, but you use the latter like the former.No, I don't. I just don't see the photo of that implied nude woman as inappropriate. If nipples or genitals were in view, then I would say it's inappropriate.

But it has been stated in several places at several points in the forums' history that the Team 17 Forum is for discussion of Team 17 stuff. If OO was for non-Team 17 stuff, what the Hell is the point of OD?No, OO is not an open discussion, but rather a forum for discussing stuff like the internet, as the name implies (well I suppose it implies a couple of other things, but that would be inappropriate). OD is there for certain members to discuss anything within the rules without other people.



I can only assume you are being intentionally thick to try and put across some kind of non-existent point. He wasn't saying that the image was "hardcore porn". He was saying that you could trade hardcore porn elsewhere if you felt so inclined. It's clear he's not referring to the image as hardcore anything.You shouldn't resort to insults.



I woudln't know, having not seen the thread in question, but I trust Andrew and Thomas' judgement on the matter.Well as the thread was the point of me raising the issue in the first place...


You're welcome Boy Misinterprets-Basic-Concepts.Spare me the insults.

Andy, I'd suggest stepping away from the computer and spending an hour doing Something Else. You're taking this incredibly seriously, perhaps a ltitle personally. It's just an internet forum, there are rules, and there's little point whipping yourself up into a fury over them.

Go make a cup of tea or something. See what's on the telly.

Would you care if this site was just suddenly deleted? I'm sure you would. So it's just the internet? I'm sure you'd be pretty annoyed.


For about 5 minutes, then I'd find something else to do, probably away from the computer.

For the first time in my life I feel like looking up that psyduck emotocon.

http://www.ipengo.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/psyduck.gif

Would you care if this site was just suddenly deleted? I'm sure you would. So it's just the internet? I'm sure you'd be pretty annoyed.
This time yesterday I would have been.

It's not off-topic.
Yes, it is.

Can you at least send me the links of the images (via facebook, or whatever method) that were deemed inappropriate?
That would violate Facebook's terms and conditions.

I'm not aware that I posted the photo of that woman with the microphone in that thread.
I cannot for a second fathom what part of that you thought was relevant.

YOU POSTED A PHOTO OF A NAKED WOMAN ON THIS THREAD. THIS MEANT THAT BEN SAW IT WHILE AT WORK, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN. THAT COULD HAVE GOT HIM FIRED, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE OF YOUR BELLIGERENCE. HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE WHY THAT'S NOT OK?

If some kid at home saw that thread, saw the picture in it and thought "haha, i'll look at that website where the funny picture came from" and their parents saw, they'd say "but it was on the forum" and then Team17 would get in trouble. Not legal, probably, but political, and they don't need that. That is more important than your right (which you haven't got) to laugh inanely at moronic pictures of supposedly-comedic phallic icons on this particular website.

If the "temporary ban" infraction was shorter I'd be sorely tempted to make you go stand outside until you calm down.

No, I don't. I just don't see the photo of that implied nude woman as inappropriate. If nipples or genitals were in view, then I would say it's inappropriate.
Then you're wrong, for the reason I just said. And in any case, there was an explicit nude on the same site. I realise that there'll always be a direct chain of clicks from any site on the internet to porn, but when it doesn't even go through one domain there's a good chance someone will complain.

Furthermore, I say that the idea that context is irrelevant and anatomy is the key is offensive and rather stupid. I don't think anyone would complain about a picture of Michaelangelo's David or the Venus de Milo, but a fully clothed woman masturbating is still porn. Context is key.

No, OO is not an open discussion, but rather a forum for discussing stuff like the internet
No, that's what b3ta is for. OO is for discussing Worms websites, Worms clans, WormNET and other related things. It's generally moderated more leniently than the others and certain leeway is allowed, but it absolutely isn't an internet discussion forum. Why would that be there? What sense would it make? There aren't forums for any other subjects.

Go make a cup of tea or something.
God, no. The last thing he needs is caffeine.




Now, I've bolded the important bit of this post. I'm going to bed, and you are either going to shut up or read the bold bit of this post until you get it. I don't care what you have to say on any other topic until you've absorbed that rather important point. If you think you've come up with a cunning argument that negates, that point, bash your head against the wall and read it some more.

Just going to chime in once more before I go to bed on the subject of the forum rules, as mentioned earlier by Star Worms (although remember we do have a specific Rules thread)

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Team17 Forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Team17 Forum, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Team17 Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

I have highlighted key points.

The non-underlined highlighted bits, specifically the 2nd to last paragraph are subjective as has been demonstrated and tie in nicely with the underlined+highlighted bit. While the owners don't have the time to patrol the forum, they do ask that Andrew and I keep it as clean as possible, so therefore we are allowed to remove any post for any reason. People always seem to forget this bit on the internet... can't think why :confused:

If I wanted, I could go and delete every single one of Akuryou13's god-knows-how-many posts (Aku was chosen because he has the most posts, no other reason :p), but I won't because that would probably be the end of me being a mod.

Also, I think this thread is required reading:
http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34438

But mostly, this is detracting from the point: to the best of my knowledge, that thread was deleted more in case than because. The fact that it later proved that is largely incidental. We don't get paid for this and don't want to read through 20 pages of large image files from servers of dubious speed just in case there's some offensive ones when we can far more easily delete the whole thing as the spam it so obviously is.

It is you who is turning this into what I might generously term "a debate" about the nature of obscenity. Now I'm going to bed.

in all seriousness though you guys need to accept the loss of hundreds of undoubtedly "hilarious" cat image macros and move on

That would violate Facebook's terms and conditions.So from what I can gather: Someone posted some hardcore porn on the thread. You deleted it and locked the thread. Then thomasp deleted the thread. Why not just delete the post and leave it be?

Email then.


I cannot for a second fathom what part of that you thought was relevant.

YOU POSTED A PHOTO OF A NAKED WOMAN ON THIS THREAD. THIS MEANT THAT BEN SAW IT WHILE AT WORK, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN. THAT COULD HAVE GOT HIM FIRED, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE OF YOUR BELLIGERENCE. HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE WHY THAT'S NOT OK?

If some kid at home saw that thread, saw the picture in it and thought "haha, i'll look at that website where the funny picture came from" and their parents saw, they'd say "but it was on the forum" and then Team17 would get in trouble. Not legal, probably, but political, and they don't need that. That is more important than your right (which you haven't got) to laugh inanely at moronic pictures of supposedly-comedic phallic icons on this particular website.Fair enough. I apologise for posting the image. The point of my posts was about the funny images thread.

If the "temporary ban" infraction was shorter I'd be sorely tempted to make you go stand outside until you calm down.


Then you're wrong, for the reason I just said. And in any case, there was an explicit nude on the same site. I realise that there'll always be a direct chain of clicks from any site on the internet to porn, but when it doesn't even go through one domain there's a good chance someone will complain.

Furthermore, I say that the idea that context is irrelevant and anatomy is the key is offensive and rather stupid. I don't think anyone would complain about a picture of Michaelangelo's David or the Venus de Milo, but a fully clothed woman masturbating is still porn. Context is key.


No, that's what b3ta is for. OO is for discussing Worms websites, Worms clans, WormNET and other related things. It's generally moderated more leniently than the others and certain leeway is allowed, but it absolutely isn't an internet discussion forum. Why would that be there? What sense would it make? There aren't forums for any other subjects.


God, no. The last thing he needs is caffeine.




Now, I've bolded the important bit of this post. I'm going to bed, and you are either going to shut up or read the bold bit of this post until you get it. I don't care what you have to say on any other topic until you've absorbed that rather important point. If you think you've come up with a cunning argument that negates, that point, bash your head against the wall and read it some more.[/QUOTE]

Just going to chime in once more before I go to bed on the subject of the forum rules, as mentioned earlier by Star Worms (although remember we do have a specific Rules thread)



I have highlighted key points.

The non-underlined highlighted bits, specifically the 2nd to last paragraph are subjective as has been demonstrated and tie in nicely with the underlined+highlighted bit. While the owners don't have the time to patrol the forum, they do ask that Andrew and I keep it as clean as possible, so therefore we are allowed to remove any post for any reason. People always seem to forget this bit on the internet... can't think why :confused:

If I wanted, I could go and delete every single one of Akuryou13's god-knows-how-many posts (Aku was chosen because he has the most posts, no other reason :p), but I won't because that would probably be the end of me being a mod.The government has every right to murder anyone they like. That doesn't mean it's right though. I don't think the deletion of the thread was right.

Also, I think this thread is required reading:
http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34438

But mostly, this is detracting from the point: to the best of my knowledge, that thread was deleted more in case than because. The fact that it later proved that is largely incidental. We don't get paid for this and don't want to read through 20 pages of large image files from servers of dubious speed just in case there's some offensive ones when we can far more easily delete the whole thing as the spam it so obviously is.

It is you who is turning this into what I might generously term "a debate" about the nature of obscenity. Now I'm going to bed.Interesting how you're all for icons that show hardcore nudity in Worms, but against images that show a bit of skin when posted on the forum. Why should the former be allowed and the latter not? Maybe you should ask yourself the same question.

Why is [a flag in Worms as a naked pair of breasts] inappropriate? Who says it's vulgar? You can see that on family beaches. Nobody really cares, and those that do are just being over-sensitive to things that really don't matter. If those people want to impose their arbitrary whimsy on their children then they have to realise that the rest of the world isn't going to respect that whimsy, and sooner or later their kids are going to be exposed to all the harmless stuff they've been shielded from at home, be it human anatomy or swear words or drawings of the prophet Mohammed.Double standards, no?


It is you who is turning this into what I might generously term "a debate" about the nature of obscenity. Now I'm going to bed.
I'm sorry, but I can't see how you came to the conclusion that I started the debate on obscenity. You said an image I posted was inappropriate. I said it wasn't. Am I now supposed to conform to your views to avoid being brandished as a debate starter? I raised the issue because I didn't agree with the deletion of the thread.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how you came to the conclusion that I started the debate on obscenity.
You're absolutely right. Where would we have gotten that idea from?

You said an image I posted was inappropriate. I said it wasn't.
Oh yeah.

I raised the issue because I didn't agree with the deletion of the thread.
You can disagree. You can hold the opinion that deleting the thread was wrong, but as I've pointed out countless times in the past, having an Opinion is not a Get Out Of Jail Free card for being Wrong. An opinion can be incorrect. In this case, your opinion is Wrong. Sorry, but dems the breaks.

So from what I can gather: Someone posted some hardcore porn on the thread. You deleted it and locked the thread. Then thomasp deleted the thread. Why not just delete the post and leave it be?that's what andrew was trying to point out that you seemed not to get. it wasn't because of what was there, it was because of the direction the thread was going in. it was a spam-pit and it served no purpose. they aren't getting paid so they can't go through all day and root-out the bad images. they later found the link to the page containing the naked woman, which simply justified their deleting the thread. nothing more.


Interesting how you're all for icons that show hardcore nudity in Worms, but against images that show a bit of skin when posted on the forum. Why should the former be allowed and the latter not? Maybe you should ask yourself the same question.

Double standards, no?the difference on this one is that in-game the actions of individual users reflect absolutely nothing about Team17. if someone wants to post boobies on their flag they have all rights to do so under freedom of speech. if you wish not to see the image you can exit the game and never play a game with that user or just never go on wormnet again. it's entirely up to you how you react to that. that's what the "Experience may change during online play" tag is there for on ESRB-rated games (and I assume there's an equivalent for the european games). Team17 is not held accountable for the actions of their users online. however, if the same exact image were someone's avatar on this forum then it would have to be deleted as inappropriate content. not because it's a double-standard, but because Team17 are personally responsible for any and all content on this website and forum. it is up to T17 to remove or edit anything they deem inappropriate and if the nudity isn't removed from their forum they can lose quite a bit of business from the mothers of the children who like the T17 games.

and I'm staying out of the rest of the argument, but I thought these points needed further clarification for the benefit of SW.

This whole discussion is stupid.

I still say that thread was no harm. There were only 3 pictures so far that were (arguably)NSFW. And they were all posted by StarWorms. In this case, simply deleting those 3 images and warning SW would have sufficed.

It was, in general, a fun thread.

But whatever, your forum your rules.

You lot can trade hardcore porn for all I care, but do it elsewhere.
Oh yeah sure I love trading hardcore porn with people over the internet. It's my faaavorite hobby.
Hey, if you ever catch me on Messenger, I've got plenty of stuff so if you need anything you know where to find me.

I just think this world is not a better place with all the censoring taking place everywhere. I understand that this is not up to T17, and you are doing your job by censoring stuff on this forum even if it's not actually offensive material. I respect that. But I'll still post in disagreement, just so I can let people know what my thoughts are on the matter.

I don't know about Andrew, but the only complaints I've seen about the removal of said thread seem to be limited to OD residents... not the usual crowd who moan till they're blue in the face whenever a thread gets binned.

So from what I can gather: Someone posted some hardcore porn on the thread.
This is false.
You deleted it and locked the thread. Then thomasp deleted the thread. Why not just delete the post and leave it be?
The post did not exist.

Email then.
This would seem like a waste of my time when you posted one earlier in this thread.

Interesting how you're all for icons that show hardcore nudity in Worms, but against images that show a bit of skin when posted on the forum. Why should the former be allowed and the latter not? Maybe you should ask yourself the same question.

Double standards, no?

I think that anyone who complains about non-sexual nudity is being irrational and I will say so when they do it. I also think that anyone who posts it, or links to it, on a corporate website without asking first knowing how many people are offended by it, is inconsiderate and should be banned from using that website to protect the company who runs it from having to defend themselves against a PR backlash from lot of angry and irrational former customers.

There's no double standard at all.

There were only 3 pictures so far that were (arguably)NSFW
Therein lies the problem: I only saw two of them when I looked at pages 1 and 20, and the possibility of a third, fourth, or fifteenth was enough for me to kill the thread. Of those three images, by the way, zero had been reported to the mods. If there'd been a steady trickle of reported images then I'd have had more faith that the rest of the thread was acceptable. Like I say, I have better things to do that check the whole thing.

This would seem like a waste of my time when you posted one earlier in this thread.Thus I conclude that you decided to lock the thread because you disliked it, rather than because there was anything wrong with it. Nice one.



I think that anyone who complains about non-sexual nudity is being irrational and I will say so when they do it. I also think that anyone who posts it, or links to it, on a corporate website without asking first knowing how many people are offended by it, is inconsiderate and should be banned from using that website to protect the company who runs it from having to defend themselves against a PR backlash from lot of angry and irrational former customers.

There's no double standard at all.'I also think that anyone who shows it on a game produced by Team17 without asking first knowing how many people are offended by it, is inconsiderate and should be banned from using that game to protect the company who runs it from having to defend themselves against a PR backlash from a lot of angry and irrational former customers.'

Double standard. You think full frontal nudity should be allowed in worms, but any picture of a naked woman, even if it just shows part of her **** or breasts, should not be allowed.



Therein lies the problem: I only saw two of them when I looked at pages 1 and 20, and the possibility of a third, fourth, or fifteenth was enough for me to kill the thread. Of those three images, by the way, zero had been reported to the mods. If there'd been a steady trickle of reported images then I'd have had more faith that the rest of the thread was acceptable. Like I say, I have better things to do that check the whole thing.Zero reported eh? What does that tell you?

Thus I conclude that you decided to lock the thread because you disliked it, rather than because there was anything wrong with it. Nice one.

Then you conclude wrong. I decided to lock the thread primarily as a stop-gap measure to stop it getting too bad while I discussed with other moderators what to do with it.

'I also think that anyone who shows it on a game produced by Team17 without asking first knowing how many people are offended by it, is inconsiderate and should be banned from using that game to protect the company who runs it from having to defend themselves against a PR backlash from a lot of angry and irrational former customers.'

Double standard. You think full frontal nudity should be allowed in worms, but any picture of a naked woman, even if it just shows part of her **** or breasts, should not be allowed.

That's bull****. Again you are twisting my motives to suit your imagined conspiracy. Stop it at once.

There's no practical way to police flags in WormNet, and given that that one was really not offensive the sensible approach is for everyone to grow up and ignore it. There's a very easy way to police the forum -- that's why we have moderators.

Plus, a flag in Wormnet exists only for a few minutes, is clearly user-created and not vetted by anyone, and doesn't leave a written record. Anything posted on the forum lasts until it's pruned (which I think is never) and can be looked up by anyone interested. The fact that it stays on the website could be interpreted as Team17 endorsing it. It's not remotely the same thing and it's not a double standard to apply different rules to it.

Besides which, I've been asked to moderate this forum according to a slightly vague and ill-defined set of rules and I interpret them how I think best at any given moment, usually erring on the side of caution unless there's a good reason not to. I am not asked to police people's flags and I'll speak quite openly about my opinions regarding them.

Zero reported eh? What does that tell you?

That it was a thread on the Team17 forums. Seriously, aside from spambots, almost nothing gets reported. Seriously, going by post reporting, yahui is one of the most conscientious members.

Then you conclude wrong. I decided to lock the thread primarily as a stop-gap measure to stop it getting too bad while I discussed with other moderators what to do with it.So nothing inappropriate was posted, yet you chose to lock a decent thread in case someone posted something inappropriate. You could say the same for about any thread. Why not lock every thread in case something bad gets posted?



That's bull****. Again you are twisting my motives to suit your imagined conspiracy. Stop it at once.I merely replaced a few words to change the subject from the forum to Worms. You said it was not a double standard, when clearly it is.

There's no practical way to police flags in WormNet, and given that that one was really not offensive the sensible approach is for everyone to grow up and ignore it. There's a very easy way to police the forum -- that's why we have moderators.Offensive - maybe not. Inappropriate, yes. They are not the same thing, remember?

Plus, a flag in Wormnet exists only for a few minutes, is clearly user-created and not vetted by anyone, and doesn't leave a written record. Anything posted on the forum lasts until it's pruned (which I think is never) and can be looked up by anyone interested. The fact that it stays on the website could be interpreted as Team17 endorsing it. It's not remotely the same thing and it's not a double standard to apply different rules to it.So if you show porn to a child, it's ok because it's only for a few minutes? Team17 is still responsible for the material that is shown on their game, just as they are for the material that is shown on their forum. There are often disclaimers; there will be on this forum one that states that Team17 are not responsible for the content of individuals' posts. The same cannot be said for Worms Armageddon. As for user creation, it is as user created nudity. It is still viewed by people, many of whom will be underage, and it is also still stored in replays. The fact that Team17 allows them to continue to play and distribute the image could be interpreted as them endorsing it.

Besides which, I've been asked to moderate this forum according to a slightly vague and ill-defined set of rules and I interpret them how I think best at any given moment, usually erring on the side of caution unless there's a good reason not to. I am not asked to police people's flags and I'll speak quite openly about my opinions regarding them.Something which I understand, but I am raising concerns about it being an over the top reaction, the deletion especially.

That it was a thread on the Team17 forums. Seriously, aside from spambots, almost nothing gets reported. Seriously, going by post reporting, yahui is one of the most conscientious members.It tells you that no-one is bothered enough to get it removed.

So nothing inappropriate was posted, yet you chose to lock a decent thread in case someone posted something inappropriate. You could say the same for about any thread. Why not lock every thread in case something bad gets posted?
I might start doing that with your threads.


I merely replaced a few words to change the subject from the forum to Worms...
...And in doing so, hugely changed the situation. You can't just port my opinions across from one thing to another. Context is important.


Offensive - maybe not. Inappropriate, yes. They are not the same thing, remember?

In that thread, I was suggesting that it shouldn't be considered offensive or inappropriate. For one thing, people are unlikely to play Worms at work.

So if you show porn to a child, it's ok because it's only for a few minutes?
It's not actually porn.

The fact that Team17 allows them to continue to play and distribute the image could be interpreted as them endorsing it.
Perhaps, but it's much less likely to actually be seen that way, and in any case nothing's stored on T17's public servers. That makes a difference.

Something which I understand, but I am raising concerns about it being an over the top reaction, the deletion especially.

Yes, heaven forbid we delete off-topic spam with links to sites with porn on them. What do you think we should delete? If I ever get a post report from you, I'll know something pretty serious is going on!

Edit: Actually, how can you say locking or deleting that thread was wrong when I have this in my GMail archive:
Star Worms ( mailto:...gmail.com ) has reported this post:

How Do You Know If You Are A WF:US Newbie?
http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=337029#post337029

This is part of this thread:
How Do You Know If You Are A WF:US Newbie?
http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=21440

This is the reason that the user gave:
A resurrection of the worst, most spammy thread ever. Please close it before it gets out of hand!

This message has been sent to all moderators of this forum, or all administrators if there are no moderators.

Please respond to this post as applicable

So, threads that you don't like are to be closed, and threads that I don't like are to be opened? Yes?

It tells you that no-one is bothered enough to get it removed.

I promise you it doesn't mean that.

This reminds me of that guy that was offended by the Confederate/Rebel flag that comes with the game by default.
IIRC, he was simply ridiculed via an avatar fad.

Oh yeah sure I love trading hardcore porn with people over the internet. It's my faaavorite hobby.
Hey, if you ever catch me on Messenger, I've got plenty of stuff so if you need anything you know where to find me.

woot

calm down the whole lot of you this is idiotic

I'm only going to reply to the points that ignore my last post.

So if you show porn to a child, it's ok because it's only for a few minutes? Team17 is still responsible for the material that is shown on their game, just as they are for the material that is shown on their forum.no company is responsible for any content in their online servers. users of the games cannot be viewed as having anything to do with the creators of the games. if a user does something offensive it is up to those present at that time to stop them from doing so. if a creator or moderator is present then it's up to them, but otherwise the incident is localized and does not reflect the creators of the game. if the creators took records of the content and hosted those records on their own site then it becomes the creators' fault for endorsing the offensive behavior but until that point it is only the fault of the individual.

There are often disclaimers; there will be on this forum one that states that Team17 are not responsible for the content of individuals' posts. The same cannot be said for Worms Armageddon. I highly doubt there is a disclaimer on this website that says any material posted is not a reflection upon Team17 because by allowing images on their site that could be construed as offensive they are endorsing those images and the users who posted them. at that point it is the same as if Team17 themselves posted the image. think of it like graffitti. if someone paints a giant ***** on the front of your office building it's not your fault, but if you put spot lights up and frame the ***** image then it becomes your fault.

As for user creation, it is as user created nudity. It is still viewed by people, many of whom will be underage, and it is also still stored in replays. The fact that Team17 allows them to continue to play and distribute the image could be interpreted as them endorsing it.until Team17 post one of the replays that include nudity on their own site or put a similar replay, video or image up for download they are not endorsing it. by leaving it on their forum when they are capable of removing it, they are endorsing it through inaction.

For the record, I just read through about half the deleted thread, and I think you're all morons. I saw precisely two funny images.

Serious Andrew Taylor is serious.

I should probably also point out at this stage that if this thread had been posted anywhere else in the forum (and especially by any non-OD member), we would have locked it instantly saying "The Moderators' decision is final".

Consider yourself lucky it's being allowed to run - for now :p

Oh noes, a thread on the Web of Intar has been locked!

http://images.gametrailers.com/images/userimages/1042357-omgonoz.gif

Andrew and Thomasp are both making entirely valid points. Besides, if nothing else, there are entire websites out there devoted to "funny" pictures. There's SomethingAwful, Fark, EbaumsWorld*, CollegeHumor, FunnyJunk, I Can Has Cheezburger, and, of course, GIS.

_________________________________
* I wouldn't recommend visiting EbaumsWorld, mind, as it's run by a bunch of thieving incompetent clusterf**ks.

no, shut up, there's too many words about a thread closing in a forum inhabited virtually homogeneously with 13 year olds and i am not reading a word of it

no, shut up, there's too many words about a thread closing in a forum inhabited virtually homogeneously with 13 year olds and i am not reading a word of it

yes this

why are people arguing over the closure of a thread that had a few moderately amusing images and a ton of terrible ones

Frankly, I think you're all idiots.

Firstly, you've changed what you've been arguing about countless times which just shows you're just arguing just for the sake of arguing and completely lost sight of the issue, which is moot anyways because arguing isn't gonna solve it.

Second, it's funny images. I never understood everyone's complusion with sharing something they found funny. It's fine if you know them and know they'll find it funny too, but otherwise it's pretty likely they'll not share your sense of humour, and with the internet that's multiplied by billions, and you'll just end up looking at you funny for having such odd tates. Maybe you all need a bigger dose of Internet if you haven't been rendered immnue to them yet. A 4chan dosage if it gets serious.

My reactions to the thread varied from "hey this is actually funny" from "boy I saw this back when I had dialup", and unless the image is really good you'll only find it funny once or twice so there's no point in "archiving them". Fine you liked them and didn't like they were deleted. It's the internet, for every image there's a thousand sites having it on display, which will then be archived by thousands of other sites, and so on. They're in your mails, in your tubes, in your files. It's no loss.

Or you're against the deletion on itself. In fact, that should probably go in the rules, because this argument gets brought up every week (along with WHAT IS THE BEST WORMS GAME):
Have you visited many forums? Did you know that in a company's forum, you do not have to talk about the company, and even entire discussions are allowed to be irrelevant to the companyNo, they don't. Unless they specifically provide a forum for such, they won't. You might find one on the EA or GPG forums but you won't find one on the Battle.Net or Nintendo forums (well those were shutdown anyways).
Down to it, this is the Team17 Forum, by Team17, and they and all the people they appoint to the task are free to regulate it as see fit, and that's that. End of.

The internet is not serious business. Deal with it.

I never understood everyone's complusion with sharing something they found funny.

It's a natural human reaction - you find something entertaining or amusing, and you show and/or tell others about it. It's no different from telling someone "I just bought this awesome game" or "I saw this film last night, it was incredible..."

If you know the other side will respond well. I doubt anyone would recommend me an RPG no matter how awesome they find it, much like I wouldn't recommend you CAD even if half the internet would.

I'm fine with well-thought recommendations here and there, but the thread wasn't that, it was just a clusterf*** of everything everyone everywhere found amusing.

I wish I could add polls to threads - would be really interesting to see the general opinion of OD on this topic, as there does seem to be a very definite split.

Hmm...
Can I re-post the funny picture in here that I once posted and got 3 infraction points for? :D

Hmm...
Can I re-post the funny picture in here that I once posted and got 3 infraction points for? :D
Yes, if you want another 3 :p

And that picture wasn't even in the "Funny Pics" thread that got deleted.

What if I make my own funny picture?

The "Your Other Art" thread?

What if I make my own funny picture?

What if?

If it's T17-related, Fan Art. If not, then DeviantArt. This isn't an anti-picture drive.

I doubt anyone would recommend me an RPG no matter how awesome they find it

You don't get that? I often get bombarded with someone saying how great some FPS or RPG is. :-/

guys lost oddysey is awesum u shud totly buy it like nine tiems

guys lost oddysey is awesum u shud totly buy it like nine tiems
wow >>>>>>>>>>>> all

You don't get that? I often get bombarded with someone saying how great some FPS or RPG is. :-/That's my point. Then it becomes an annoyance instead of a recommendation. :p

http://g.photos.cx/gumbysaysso-98.png

oh sorry I guess this is an inappropriate image

oh sorry I guess this is an inappropriate image

gtfo my internet you inappropriate person :mad:

my internets have been scarred for liff!

I have in my possession the worst picture in the history of worst.

Don't make me use it.

....aaaaand normal off-topicness has been resumed :p

....aaaaand normal off-topicness has been resumed :p
Purpose fulfilled.
Merge with 100%OT.

I have in my possession the worst picture in the history of worst.

Don't make me use it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/programmes/food/slimmingpicture.jpg

Purpose fulfilled.
Merge with 100%OT.

That would be strange.

Honestly Andrew, I can't believe you're in here posting an unfunny image. There's no place for that kind of behaviour here. I demand you lock then delete this thread due to your behaviour.

Shouldn't the "YouTube/GoogleVideo/Other videos.." thread be closed for the same reason as the picture thread? I mean, if Andrew doesn't find the majority of those videos funny it should be closed.

Shouldn't the "YouTube/GoogleVideo/Other videos.." thread be closed for the same reason as the picture thread? I mean, if Andrew doesn't find the majority of those videos funny it should be closed.

The only possible reasons for posting that are:

You haven't read this thread
You want to deliberately provoke a reaction from me
You're a moron


And therefore...

Infracted for trolling!

I just think it's a strange system. And the whole funny image thread issue is plain silly, you guys are taking things too seriously.

The only possible reasons for posting that are:

You haven't read this thread
You want to deliberately provoke a reaction from me
You're a moron


And therefore...

Infracted for trolling!
are you kidding me? calm the **** down

I don't want to lock this thread. I don't like the idea of stopping people quesioning my modding decisions. If I want to be a facist dictator, I'll do it on my own site where I can do what I like.

But equally, I don't want to be drawn into a long and pointless thread where I answer the same bloody stupid questions over and over again. If Xinos wants to ask provocative questions which I've already answered then I can only conclude he's doing it purely to annoy me, and that's trolling.

It's the equivalent of posting "wii is teh kiddeh" in a thread about consoles -- it will annoy people and generate a lot of tedious argument without furthering the discussion in the slightest. Why shouldn't I infract him for that? Anyway, it was only one point -- it's not as if it'll make any difference.

The death of the funny pictures thread should have been a happy time for all involved.

Now it's been ruined for everybody.

The death of the funny pictures thread should have been a happy time for all involved.

Now it's been ruined for everybody.
Seconded..

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/supsuper/odserious.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/supsuper/odserious.jpg
That should be:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4818/odseriousbusinessdt5.jpg

I've just realised that Ben appears to have a monocle sewn into his neck.

It took three operations but it was worth it.

I admit that I went about this in a tactless way - which is usually my style. However I really believe the moderating was too heavy handed: A precautionary move shouldn't involve deletion.

The whole 'debate' about nudity was completely ridiculous, and irrelevant. I also find it unfortunate that some people want to make this personal.

The forum is going downhill and no-one wants to address it. Oh well. I tried. But now I'm past caring.

People do want to address it, Andy. Posting smut doesn't exactly help the matter though. I believe, correctly, that the mod action was sound.

People do want to address it, Andy. Posting smut doesn't exactly help the matter though. I believe, correctly, that the mod action was sound.Clearly you don't though, and instead want to drag me back into it. Again you misinterpret the meaning of the thread, which was never about nudity.

I've been mentioning the decline of the Team17 Forum on and off now for months. I've written about it on Dream17. I'm in the process of writing a fullscale article about the decline for the site. I've left the forum no less than three times and explicitly stated it was because the place isn't fun anymore. People do want to talk about it, Andy. You're just too insular to notice.

And the meaning of the thread may not have been nudity, but that didn't stop people posting pictures of semi-nekkid wimmens, did it?

I agree. This place isn't fun anymore, which was why I raised it in the first place. The funny images thread was a nice place to go for a quick laugh. Other forums seem to get the balance fine, while allowing these sorts of threads, despite also catering for younger members. So why can't we do the same here instead of removing a thread in case someone posted an image against the rules?

The thread wasn't removed in case someone posted an image which was against the rules, it was moved because quite a few images were against the rules.

Threads like that are probably best when they're around for a month or so, killed off, and then about a month or so later, another one appears.

The thread wasn't removed in case someone posted an image which was against the rules, it was moved because quite a few images were against the rules.

Threads like that are probably best when they're around for a month or so, killed off, and then about a month or so later, another one appears.
Ashes to Ashes is just about to start so I don't have time to check right now, but I seem to remember that AT said somewhere in this thread something along the lines of it being removed incase something was posted.

I suppose I should point out at this stage that the thread everyone's moaning about was the SECOND thread on this topic to be closed. The first one is here: http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=29943

Sel closed this one on 23rd Aug '06, and looking at the mod-log, a considerable number of posts were removed. Unfortunately, Sel used to totally remove the posts rather than soft delete them, so nobody, not even mods, can see the deleted posts, so I can only guess that the posts were of an inappropriate nature for this forum.

Plus everyone knows this is the only thread that can contain nudity: http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34285

I'm glad to think I've contributed positively.

Ashes to Ashes is just about to start so I don't have time to check right now, but I seem to remember that AT said somewhere in this thread something along the lines of it being removed incase something was posted.

I locked the thread and posted a thread in the mod forum asking what should be done with it. I did this because the front and back pages of the thread contained stuff I thought was borderline and I didn't want to have to read through the whole, brain-numbing parade of idiocy when I could be doing something more fun, such as repeatedly stabbing a fork into my leg. After that, thomasp had a look and decided on balance that it did break the rules in several places and deleted the thread. Unfortunately, I am not Derren Brown and so I do not always know what his reasons are when he does things. Later I found out that the thread contained a link to a photo of a woman with no clothes on, and we all felt suitable vindicated. In any case the thread was off-topic spam and no loss to anyone.

Well now I'm trying to get the hang of drumming with my keyboard, and trying to get the tempo right. So I made a simple beat and had fun with my guitar over it. It's only 28 seconds tho, next time I'll try something longer. :p
http://mp3space.com/file/32570/testccc2
Edit: DAMN. This isn't the 100% off topic thread. :p

LOL, that's cool :)