question for moderators

Your hope is in vain shmeet.
Usenet content has never been excluded, as long as it is within the rules.
That mean you cannot link to it but download and reup to a permitted host.
_________________
[URL=http://www.casimages.com][/URL]

I know the list of permitted link protectors and I am aware that linksave.in is NOT on this list which means an automatic ban in this forum.

Nevertheless I am using linksave in a larger forum to protect my uploads. I am posting the same files in forumophilia as coded links. Is it permitted to add the linksave status image to the coded link?

This would be an additional information for the downloaders if the link is still alive

example:

Code:

dead link

Status:

The status image is stupid: it does not know whether it shows the status of a linksave protected file or of a coded native link. I have it available anyway. Any ads are not visible so that the basic idea of forumophilia is not violated.

Trilight wrote:

I would say no, Trilight.
For several reason: technically it's an unapproved imagehoster but that's not the point.
I've seen a lot of green boxes even if the links are long time gone, so i guess it's not a real help to display the link-status. There are several tools and addons every poster may install if he wishes to check the links.
Even if you remove the link behind the box it is easy to access the folder anyway and then you have access to the containers. And then we would have to check every folder, to prevent that some "specialists" hide forbidden content in that folder.
Starting to make an exeption here can rapidly lead to a lot of other wishes ...
And another thought: poster who would use this box i would consider as posters who are checking their links anyhow by themselves regularily, so allowing this green box is not the right measure to decrease the number of dead links in the forum.
_________________
> Amateurs | > Handjobs | JAV Movies

svinto wrote:

Right... well that's the only possible to do it. "Links" don't exist in the usenut world. There's no other way get the content from the usenet up on the internet/filehost. That's it. Did i not understand you're reply?

I think you were saying that as long as the process is done according to the rules, it's fine. But that sounds to me like you are suggesting there are other ways do it that would be against the rules...?

I don't know for sure what you meant. lol

Thanks for the reply though.


EDIT-- Maybe this helps... For any computer to be able to download from the usenet, that computer has to be connected to the usenet with a newsreader interface. In fact, if you are browsing the usenet(connected), you can open up your taskmanager and stop all your internet browser processes(Iexlporer, firefox etc.)... actually, you can stop and quit windows alltogether so you have only a black desktop with no icons and no internet, and your newsreader will be 100% functional and connected to the usenet. So what i'm saying i guess, is that the usenet is a seperate thing from the internet... You can't access it with an internet based program. It can't be done. So any notion of links to share on the internet/forums just can't apply.

I'm not a usenet user so my terminology may not fit.
Why are you nagging about such details instead of concentrating on the other sentence I wrote?
That one is much more interesting for the forum than your constant bickering.
svinto wrote:
_________________
[URL=http://www.casimages.com][/URL]

svinto wrote:


I know you're not a usenet user. It's because of the sentence you mentioned that gives that away...

Quote:

I was trying to fill you in on what it actually is and why this sentence doesn't make sense in the context of the usenet world. I thought i was being helpful. Giving as many details as i can, in my mind, helps the most. However, and this is a perfect example, the usenet cannot be understood with explination alone. It has to be done by the user themselves before it can be fully understood.

Unfortunately, from what i've been reading the last few months, i'm wondering if anyone in the higher ranks have ever used the newsserver first-hand and know what it really is. And if this is the case, then carving out any rules for it would be a waste of time. They won't make any sense and they'll come back around and bite you in the future unless you know exactly what, why, how, when, and everything else inside and out BEFORE you make the rule.

So i know you don't use it, and i know monkey never uses it... is there any admins here who do use it regularly? If they could step in and explain it to you guys behind the seens and maybe give you guys a walkthrough so you could understand it, that would be fantastic.

But unless something like that happens, you should hold off on any rules. Like i said before, I'll put together a short tutorial for you. I have the time to do it. What do you have to lose? Nothing bad can come from learning how to use it. Knowledge is a good thing.

If it's that hard to understand, then can the discussion.
How many times do I need to tell you that.
CAN IT!!!
_________________
[URL=http://www.casimages.com][/URL]

Wow! I was trying to help out. I thought you wanted the help. I must've been mistaken. Sorry, no need to get upset. If you channge your mind let me know.

Does the 600 pixels max width for picshosting rule still apllies? I have seen posts with 1024 pixels width pics on them and no mod said anything. This can save me some work since I usually pichost at 600 pixels and provide a thumbnail link for a bigger image.

The maximum width is still 650 and height 1300 pixels.
If you see anyone posting larger ones, report them with the button.
The moderators can't be everywhere and check every post, although they do their best.
_________________
[URL=http://www.casimages.com][/URL]

If you use the thumbnail option of one of the allowed image hoster or the boards attachment function, there's no limit at all (except the weight limit of course, depends on the hoster, range from 1 to 5 MB).

Monkey D. Ruffy

Simple question: if i google FORUMPHILIA the first link is
https://www.forumophilia.com/topic53972-45.html#628949
created by kokotko.. But why not the main page??

simone5c wrote:
Because the name of the forum is Forumophilia, not Forumphilia.

humlan