Forumophilia - 18 Years Online!
Monkey D. Ruffy
simone5c wrote:
Like this
Nice girl with bear, yes, that's allowed
@shmeet
shmeet wrote:
Most likely all sorts of mentioning newsgroups and/or usenet will be forbidden as well.
shmeet wrote:
What people do on other places, doesn't concern me personally, but discussing where to get that stuff, naming the places, isn't allowed and won't be allowed. Mods/admins here won't control the internet, but we want to keep this board clean, in line with the groundrules the site owner ones layed out.
Therefore no need to allow discussions about this type of sites.
shmeet wrote:
That being said, I now for a fact, and i'm sure many ppl here who know how to use the nes servers will back me up on this, that the main bulk of content found through this forum has originaly come from the usenet. The same is true for most if not all forums and blogs etc.. In fact, pretty much everything on the internet goes through the news server first. At least as far as movies, tv shows, site rips etc.
Maybe i should't say this, but i'll risk it, lol.... i'd say probably 95%+/- of the material i've posted here is from the news server. I'm not the only one, i assure you.
Doubtfully. Mine for example: 65% from other boards, 30% from the paysites itself, 5% P2P, news server 0% (though I can't say, where the stuff from the boards originally comes from).
shmeet wrote:
I don't see how the system is going to be damaged in any way by allowing discussions of usenet subjects and dislaying newgroup names and the files in those groups. Not the links, there are no links. lol.
If we were allowed such discussions the only downside would be...well...I guess if having more content added to the forum could be considered bad, then that is the only downside i can think of.
Nope. Will draw attention of existing members to other places and the intention of the board owner is, to keep them here, not somewhere else.
shmeet wrote:
Maybe not yet, but as said before, usenet will be forbidden as well.
That's a fact, sorry.
Monkey D. Ruffy
Like this
Nice girl with bear, yes, that's allowed
@shmeet
shmeet wrote:
Can we expext to see something in the way of clearing up the grey are when it comes to usenet content?
It just seems funny to me that the largest source of internet porn cannot be discussed or even mentioned here in the forums.
The usenet(news server) is in it's own catagory. It's not a website, forum, blog site etc., and it has nothing in common with Yahoo, MSN or Google "groups". It isn't a file sharing thing. There are no passwords needed for access. And there are no links to be copied and pasted in any browsers. In fact there are no links at all on the news servers. Files can only be downloaded to the persons computer who is accessing the news server. Only the names of a particular file can be shared.
Ex. Debbie Does Dallas.avi
The only other info would be the name of the newsgroup(different than google, yahoo, msn... these have nothing to do with the news server.)
It just seems funny to me that the largest source of internet porn cannot be discussed or even mentioned here in the forums.
The usenet(news server) is in it's own catagory. It's not a website, forum, blog site etc., and it has nothing in common with Yahoo, MSN or Google "groups". It isn't a file sharing thing. There are no passwords needed for access. And there are no links to be copied and pasted in any browsers. In fact there are no links at all on the news servers. Files can only be downloaded to the persons computer who is accessing the news server. Only the names of a particular file can be shared.
Ex. Debbie Does Dallas.avi
The only other info would be the name of the newsgroup(different than google, yahoo, msn... these have nothing to do with the news server.)
Most likely all sorts of mentioning newsgroups and/or usenet will be forbidden as well.
shmeet wrote:
Any one of the users here in this forum could post something against the rules at anytime, and sometimes they do. Just because a source of material might have something that you don't want in the forums, banning the source is really, now that i think about it, well...impossible. lol.
Ppl are going to use what ever source of material they feel like at the end of the day. It's up to them what they want to post from that material. And at the very, very end of the day, we have Moderators with the power to delete inappropriate content. Just how it has always been. But controling where ppl look on the internet or on the news servers just can't be done. I'll tell you this much though, the internet in general is by far without question a larger source of material than the news server. The worries about ppl accessing inappropriate materials there would be waaaaaaaaaaay higher than on the news server. Thats just logical.
Ppl are going to use what ever source of material they feel like at the end of the day. It's up to them what they want to post from that material. And at the very, very end of the day, we have Moderators with the power to delete inappropriate content. Just how it has always been. But controling where ppl look on the internet or on the news servers just can't be done. I'll tell you this much though, the internet in general is by far without question a larger source of material than the news server. The worries about ppl accessing inappropriate materials there would be waaaaaaaaaaay higher than on the news server. Thats just logical.
What people do on other places, doesn't concern me personally, but discussing where to get that stuff, naming the places, isn't allowed and won't be allowed. Mods/admins here won't control the internet, but we want to keep this board clean, in line with the groundrules the site owner ones layed out.
Therefore no need to allow discussions about this type of sites.
shmeet wrote:
That being said, I now for a fact, and i'm sure many ppl here who know how to use the nes servers will back me up on this, that the main bulk of content found through this forum has originaly come from the usenet. The same is true for most if not all forums and blogs etc.. In fact, pretty much everything on the internet goes through the news server first. At least as far as movies, tv shows, site rips etc.
Maybe i should't say this, but i'll risk it, lol.... i'd say probably 95%+/- of the material i've posted here is from the news server. I'm not the only one, i assure you.
Doubtfully. Mine for example: 65% from other boards, 30% from the paysites itself, 5% P2P, news server 0% (though I can't say, where the stuff from the boards originally comes from).
shmeet wrote:
I don't see how the system is going to be damaged in any way by allowing discussions of usenet subjects and dislaying newgroup names and the files in those groups. Not the links, there are no links. lol.
If we were allowed such discussions the only downside would be...well...I guess if having more content added to the forum could be considered bad, then that is the only downside i can think of.
Nope. Will draw attention of existing members to other places and the intention of the board owner is, to keep them here, not somewhere else.
shmeet wrote:
It seems to me that perhaps, and i don't mean this in a bad way what-so-ever, but perhaps the folks in charge of the forum maybe have never had the chance to use the real news servers and might be mistaking it for the MSN, google groups, yahoo*... etc... It is a very involved process and nearly impossible to learn on your own. Someone has to walk you through it... a few times! I don't see how anyone could learn how to navigate the news server by just reading instructions on their own. So it's not a high percentage of ppl who have the knowledge to begin with.
If this is the case, i would be glad to take it upon myself to put together a detailed tutorial for any admin or mod or owner or for all. Just give me the go ahead.
But if the moderators reading this could pass it up the old foodchain i would be grateful.
* I come to this conclusion judging from the rules and the way they are worded. Usenet just isn't covered in them.
If this is the case, i would be glad to take it upon myself to put together a detailed tutorial for any admin or mod or owner or for all. Just give me the go ahead.
But if the moderators reading this could pass it up the old foodchain i would be grateful.
* I come to this conclusion judging from the rules and the way they are worded. Usenet just isn't covered in them.
Maybe not yet, but as said before, usenet will be forbidden as well.
That's a fact, sorry.
Monkey D. Ruffy
shmeet
Respected Poster
Monkey D. Ruffy
SexInNewLife
I'm probably spamming
Smukke Charlie
Respected Poster
shmeet
Respected Poster
Monkey D. Ruffy
vanko02
I'm probably spamming
vanko02
I'm probably spamming
humlan
Respected Poster
vanko02
I'm probably spamming
humlan
Respected Poster
Monkey D. Ruffy
simone5c
I'm probably spamming
humlan
Respected Poster
simone5c wrote:
Board error, and it's quite common too. Some users get a negative warning after their actual warning has expired. svinto has a standard text message for this:
Quote:
humlan
What does warning:-1 means??
Board error, and it's quite common too. Some users get a negative warning after their actual warning has expired. svinto has a standard text message for this:
Quote:
Hi USERNAME.
This is a screw up of the database, assigning members negative warning numbers.
There are numerous of people experiencing the same as you.
An actual warning is always accompanioned with a yellow square.
Warning dot
Only way to currently get around it, is to issue fake warnings.
I could do that if you like.
In that case I suggest you to make a post or a new topic.
Send me the link to that post or topic.
I will issue X warnings stating they are fake to bring the counter to 0.
When that is done the post or topic could be deleted.
With this method the forum looks cleaner than if a post carries a number
of, what should be, unnecessery warnings at the bottom.
svinto
Forumophilia
Administrator
This is a screw up of the database, assigning members negative warning numbers.
There are numerous of people experiencing the same as you.
An actual warning is always accompanioned with a yellow square.
Warning dot
Only way to currently get around it, is to issue fake warnings.
I could do that if you like.
In that case I suggest you to make a post or a new topic.
Send me the link to that post or topic.
I will issue X warnings stating they are fake to bring the counter to 0.
When that is done the post or topic could be deleted.
With this method the forum looks cleaner than if a post carries a number
of, what should be, unnecessery warnings at the bottom.
svinto
Forumophilia
Administrator
humlan